Allowed

Abdul Salam, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC5 Apr 2019Bail Appl./1969/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala granted bail to the second accused under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in a case involving alleged offences of assault and insult to modesty. The court held custodial interrogation unnecessary and imposed standard conditions, including a bond and pre-arrest court reporting.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; accused released on bail after interrogation if any, on executing a bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties, subject to specific conditions.

Abdul Salam, Vs State of Kerala — Cheating and Forgery | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

Bail Appl..No. 1969 of 2019

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.BABU

¶6

FRIDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF APRIL 2019 / 15TH CHAITHRA, 1941

¶7

Bail Appl..No. 1969 of 2019

¶8

CRIME NO. 25/2019 OF Nattukal Police Station , Palakkad

¶9

PETITIONER/S:

¶10

ABDUL SALAM, AGED 55 YEARS S/O.MUHAMED,KULANGARA VEEDU,PONPPARA, POST UPPUKULAM,EDATHANATTUKARA, MANNARKATTU TALUK,PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶11

BY ADVS. SRI.R.SREEHARI SRI.SACHIN VYAS

¶12

RESPONDENT/S:

¶13

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM,THROUGH THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,NATTUKAL POLICE SATATION,MANNARKKAD TALUK,PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678583.

¶14

OTHER PRESENT:

¶15

SRI. B.JAYASURYA-Senior public prosecutor

¶16

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.04.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

¶18

Bail Appl..No. 1969 of 2019

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Petitioner is the second accused in crime no.25/2019 of Nattukal police station in Palakkad district. He seeks bail under Sec.438 of Cr.P.C. He is alleged to have committed offences punishable under Secs 323, 341, 354 and 354A of IPC read with IPC 34.

¶21

The first informant is the wife of the first accused. The petitioner is the father-in-law of the first informant. The former lodged an FI statement with the police complaining against her husband and father-in-law. She alleged that she was assaulted at 9 p.m on 9.2.2019 at her matrimonial home.

¶22

Heard Sri.R.Sreehari, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.B.Jayasurya, the learned senior public prosecutor.

¶23

Of different offences alleged against the petitioner, the only one which is non-bailable is the one punishable under Sec.354 of IPC. I have gone through the case diary. The allegation is that the first informant was slapped on her face and was kicked on her back by the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said allegation is not sufficient to attract Sec.354 of IPC. The submission cannot be brushed aside. The wound certificate does not suggest sustainment of any serious injury by the victim. The only injury noted in the wound certificate is a contusion on the left hand. I do not consider custodial interrogation necessary for an effective investigation of the case. For reasons stated above, I allow

¶24

¶25

Bail Appl..No. 1969 of 2019

¶26

the application.

¶27

The application is allowed. If arrested in connection with crime no.25/2019 of Nattukal police station, the petitioner shall be released on bail, after interrogation, if any, on his executing a bond for Rs 50,000/- (fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the investigating officer. The petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation. He shall make himself available for interrogation if so required by the investigating officer. The petitioner shall report to the investigating officer between 10 am and 11 am on every Saturday for a period of two months or till the filing of the final report, whichever is earlier. The petitioner shall not intimidate or attempt to influence witnesses. Nor shall he destroy or tamper with evidence. The magistrate having jurisdiction is hereby empowered to cancel the bail in accordance with law if any of the conditions aforementioned is violated. If the petitioner surrenders before the magistrate, this order will cease to have effect and the learned magistrate will pass appropriate orders as if this order has not been passed.

Sd/-

A.M.BABU

Sks/5.4.2019

JUDGE

Abdul Salam, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Salam, 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

Bhuvaneswari Vs State of Kerala

Nithhin Xavier Vs State of Kerala

Shyju K.P. Vs P.G.Sathyamoorthi

Maheswari K.U., Vs the Station House Officer

Aji Vs State of Kerala

Shafeer P.M. Vs State of Kerla