Allowed

Rafi.S.M. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC9 Oct 2019Bail Appl./6137/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed an anticipatory bail application filed by accused persons facing charges of assault, injury causing, and extortion. The court held that custodial interrogation was not necessary as no serious injuries were sustained.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted on execution of bond for Rs.50,000 with two sureties each for the same sum, subject to conditions of appearance and non-interference.

Rafi.S.M. 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 RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 17TH ASWINA, 1941

¶5

Bail Appl..No.6137 OF 2019

¶6

CRIME NO.1207/2019 OF Pooyapally Police Station, Kollam

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:

¶8

1 RAFI.S.M., AGED 30 YEARS, S/O. SHAHUDEEN, KUNNUVILA PUTHENVEEDU, ATTOORKONAM, KARINGANOOR P.O., KOLLAM.

¶9

2 REJIN, AGED 33 YEARS, S/O. ABDUL RAHIM, REJIN MANZIL, ATTOORKONAM, KARINGANOOR P.O., KOLLAM.

¶10

3 NAFEER K., AGED 27 YEARS, S/O. KABEER, CHERUNALLOOR VEEDU, ATTOORKONAM, KARINGANOOR P.O., KOLLAM.

¶11

4 NAFEEK, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O KABEER, CHERUNALLOOR VEEDU, ATTOORKONAM, KARINGANOOR P.O., KOLLAM.

¶12

BY ADVS. DR.K.P.SATHEESAN (SR.) SRI.P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM) SRI.S.VIBHEESHANAN SRI.K.SUDHINKUMAR SRI.S.K.ADHITHYAN SRI.SABU PULLAN

¶13

RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT:

¶14

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 682 031.

¶15

2 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, POOYAPPALLY POLICE STATION, POOYAPPALLY, KOLLAM - 691 537.

¶16

SRI.RAMESH CHAND, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶17

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.10.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

Bail Appl..No.6137 OF 2019

¶19

¶20

ORDER

¶21

This application is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶22

The applicants herein are the accused Nos.1, 5, 3 and 4 in Crime No.1207 of 2019 of Pooyappally Police Station, registered under Sections 341, 323, 324, 308, 427 and 506 read with Section 149 of the IPC.

¶23

On 28.07.2019 at about 8.30 p.m., the applicants are alleged to have wrongfully restrained the informant and his brother and they were attacked causing injuries. It is further alleged that a sum of Rs.12,500/- was snatched from the possession of brother of the informant.

¶24

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicants and the learned Public Prosecutor

¶25

I have considered the submissions advanced and have gone through the case diary. Having gone through the records made available by the learned Public Prosecutor, it does not appear that any serious injuries were sustained by the victims. No other crimes are reported against the applicants. In the facts and circumstances, I am of the view that the custodial interrogation of the applicants is not necessary for an effective investigation in the instant case.

¶26

In the result, this application will stand allowed. The applicants shall appear before the Investigating Officer within ten days from today and shall undergo interrogation. Thereafter, if they are proposed to be arrested, they shall be released on bail on their executing a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees

¶27

Bail Appl..No.6137 OF 2019

¶28

¶29

Fifty thousand only) each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum. The

¶30

above order shall be subject to the following conditions:

¶31

i) The applicants shall co-operate with the investigation and shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Saturdays between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m., for two months or till final report is filed, whichever is earlier.

¶32

ii) They shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/ her from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer.

¶33

iii) They shall not commit any similar offence while on bail.

¶34

In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the jurisdictional Court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation, if any, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law.

¶35

SD/-

¶36

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., JUDGE

¶37

//TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE

¶38

DSV/10.10.19

Rafi.S.M. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rafi.S.M. 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

Muhammed Sayeed.M.a Vs State of Kerala

Geeson Jacob Vs State of Kerala

Vishnu P.U. Vs State of Kerala

Sreekala Vs State of Kerala

Shivaprasad Vs State of Kerala

K.R.Indira Vs State of Kerala