Partly allowed

Shafeekh v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC3 Apr 2019Bail Appl./1750/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Kerala considered two bail applications under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in a crush-affray case. The court, noting the gravity of the charge and prior convictions for one petitioner, dismissed the applications for those who wielded weapons. Conversely, it granted bail to three petitioners with no antecedents, subject to strict conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted to Petitioners 3-5 of BA 1750/2019 subject to bond and surrender conditions; Applications for Petitioners 1-2 and Petitioner of BA 2186/2019 dismissed.

Shafeekh Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

¶4

WEDNESDAY,THE 03RD DAY OF APRIL 2019 / 13TH CHAITHRA, 1941

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 1750 of 2019

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMC 233/2010 of DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT,KOZHIKODE DATED 26-02-2019

¶7

CRIME NO. 22/2019 OF Nadapuram Police Station , Kozhikode

¶8

PETITIONER/S:

¶9

1 SHAFEEKH AGED 41 YEARS S/O.ABDULLA, KOROLLATHIL HOUSE, CHELAKKAD.P.O., KALLACHI VIA, KOZHIKODE.

¶10

2 MUNEER KOROLLATHIL AGED 34 YEARS S/O.ABDULLA, KOROLLATHIL HOUSE, CHELAKKAD.P.O., KALLACHI VIA, KOZHIKODE.

¶11

3 YASAR KANDOTH AGED 31 YEARS S/O.ABDULLA HAJI, CHELAKKAD.P.O., KALLACHI VIA, KOZHIKODE.

¶12

4 AMMAD KANDOTH AGED 62 YEARS S/O.POCKER, CHELAKKAD.P.O., KALLACHI VIA, KOZHIKODE.

¶13

5 MUSTHAFA MANHINOLI, AGED 38 YEARS S/O.AMMAD, CHELAKKAD.P.O., KALLACHI P.O., KOZHIKODE.

¶14

BY ADVS. SRI.S.RAJEEV SRI.D.FEROZE SRI.K.ANAND (A-1921) SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN SRI.V.VINAY

¶15

Bail Appl..No. 1750 of 2019 & Bail Appl..No. 2186 of 2019

¶16

-2-

¶17

RESPONDENT/S:

¶18

1 STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.(CRIME NO.22/2019 OF NADAPURAM POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT)

¶19

2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER, NADAPURAM POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT673504 (CRIME NO.22/2019 OF NADAPURAM POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT).

¶20

BY ADV. SRI.SUNNY MATHEW

¶21

OTHER PRESENT:

¶22

SRI.C.S.HRITHWIK,PP

¶23

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.04.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

Bail Appl..No. 1750 of 2019 & Bail Appl..No. 2186 of 2019

¶25

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶26

PRESENT

¶27

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

¶28

WEDNESDAY,THE 03RD DAY OF APRIL 2019 / 13TH CHAITHRA, 1941

¶29

Bail Appl..No. 2186 of 2019

¶30

CRIME NO. 22/2019 OF Nadapuram Police Station , Kozhikode

¶31

PETITIONER/S:

¶32

ABDUSSAMAD,

¶33

AGED 48 YEARS S/O. SOOPY, 3/445, ARANGATT THAZHAKUNIYIL, CHERAPURAM P.O., KAKKATTIL

¶34

BY ADVS. SRI.S.RAJEEV SRI.D.FEROZE SRI.K.ANAND (A-1921) SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN SRI.V.VINAY

¶35

RESPONDENT/S:

¶36

1 STATE OF KERALA

¶37

REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031. (CRIME NO.22/2019 OF NADAPURAM POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT)

¶38

2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER NADAPURAM POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT - 673 504,. (CRIME NO.22/2019 OF NADAPURAM POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT)

¶39

OTHER PRESENT:

¶40

SRI.C.S.HRITHWIK,PP

¶41

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.04.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING

¶42

Bail Appl..No. 1750 of 2019 & Bail Appl..No. 2186 of 2019

¶43

-4-

¶44

ORDER

¶45

The petitioners in B.A.No.1750/2019 are respectively A7, A3, A4, A5, and A6 and the petitioner in B.A.No.2186/2019 is A8 in Crime No.22/2019 of Nadapuram Police Station. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 326 and 307 r/w Section 149 IPC.

¶46

2. The prosecution allegation is that on 19.01.2019 at 6.45 p.m., the petitioners and the other accused in furtherance of their common intention, attacked the defacto complainant and four other persons with iron rods, knife, etc. causing injuries on them.

¶47

3. The petitioners have filed this

¶48

Bail Appl..No. 1750 of 2019 & Bail Appl..No. 2186 of 2019

¶49

-5-

¶50

application under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶51

3. Heard.

¶52

4. The learned Public Prosecutor

¶53

Shri.C.S.Hrithwik and the learned counsel for the defacto complainant Shri.Sunny Mathew have opposed the application.

¶54

5. It appears that the incident in this case was on the courtyard of the mosque. The petitioners attacked the defacto complainant and others immediately after the

¶55

prayer. Four persons sustained injuries in the incident. The 7^th accused, who is the first petitioner and the 3^rd accused who is the second petitioner in B.A.No.1750/2019 and the 8^th accused, who is the sole petitioner in B.A.No.2186/2019 used weapons to inflict injuries on the defacto

¶56

Bail Appl..No. 1750 of 2019 & Bail Appl..No. 2186 of 2019

¶57

-6-

¶58

complainant. The 8^th accused is also

¶59

involved in two other crimes of grave nature. The petitioner Nos.3 to 5 in

¶60

B.A.No.1750/2019 did not use any weapon to inflict injuries on the injured persons. They are also having no criminal antecedent. In view of the above reasons, an order under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in favour of petitioner Nos.3 to 5 in B.A.No.1750/2019 will be justified in this case. However, the other petitioners used weapons to inflict injuries on the injured. The recovery has to be effected in this case. That apart, the 8^th

¶61

accused is involved in two other crimes of more or less the same nature. The offences alleged in this case are very grave in nature. The incident occurred on the

¶62

Bail Appl..No. 1750 of 2019 & Bail Appl..No. 2186 of 2019

¶63

-7-

¶64

courtyard of the mosque, which itself would show the seriousness of the issue involved in this case. Considering the nature and gravity of the allegations, I am of the view that this is not a fit case to grant the relief under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in favour of the first and the second petitioners in B.A.No.1750/2019 and the sole petitioner in B.A.2186/2019.

¶65

In the result, B.A.No.2186/2019 stands dismissed and B.A.No.1750/2019 stands dismissed as regards petitioner Nos.1 and 2 and allowed as regards petitioner Nos.3 to 5 and the respondents are directed to release petitioner Nos.3 to 5 in B.A.No.1750/2019 on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.22/2019 of Nadapuram Police Station, on

¶66

Bail Appl..No. 1750 of 2019 & Bail Appl..No. 2186 of 2019

¶67

-8-

¶68

condition of each of petitioner Nos.3 to 5 executing a bond for Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty thousand only) each, with two solvent sureties each, each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the second respondent, before whom petitioner Nos.3 to 5 shall surrender within ten days, if not arrested in the meantime and subject to the following further conditions:

¶69

(i) The petitioner Nos.3 to 5 shall report before the Investigating Officer on every Monday between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m. for three months and thereafter, as and when required by the Investigating Officer for interrogation.

¶70

(ii) The petitioner Nos.3 to 5 shall not intimidate or

¶71

Bail Appl..No. 1750 of 2019 & Bail Appl..No. 2186 of 2019

¶72

-9-

¶73

influence the witnesses or in any way tamper with the investigation.

¶74

(iii) The petitioner Nos.3 to 5 shall not get involved in any other offence during the pendency of this case.

¶75

The first and the second petitioners in B.A.No.1750/2019 and the sole petitioner in B.A.No.2186/2019 are directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer within ten days.

¶76

Sd/-

¶77

B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE

¶78

STK

¶79

//TRUE COPY//

¶80

//P.A. TO JUDGE//

Shafeekh v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shafeekh v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Thomas Joseph Vs C.C.Issac (Died)

Madan Mohan Vs Sub Inspector of Police

Swapna Sudheer Vs State of Kerala

Chackochen.K.K., Vs State of Kerala

Sreekumar. H Vs State of Kerala

Ranjith K.K. Vs State of Kerala