Partly allowed

Sabir Salim, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC14 Oct 2019Bail Appl./6798/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A bail application by three accused persons in a rioting case. The court dismissed the application for the first accused who caused a fracture. For the remaining two accused facing lesser injuries, the court granted bail subject to conditions, deeming custodial interrogation unnecessary.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed for accused 1; Bail granted to accused 2 and 3 on bond of Rs. 50,000 each with two sureties.

Sabir Salim, 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

MONDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 22ND ASWINA, 1941

¶5

Bail Appl..No.6798 OF 2019

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMC 1633/2019 DATED 04-092019 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT,THRISSUR

¶7

CRIME NO.789/2019 OF Kunnamkulam Police Station, Thrissur District

¶8

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 3:

¶9

1 SABIR SALIM, AGED 20 YEARS S/O. SALIM, ALUNKAL HOUSE, PERUMBILAVU DESOM, VILLAGE AND P.O, KUNNAMKULAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶10

2 YASIR, AGED 21 YEARS S/O. HASHIM, KAYYUMPARAMBIL HOUSE, KALATHODU DESOM, OLLUKARA VILLAGE AND P.O., THRISSUR TALUK AND DISTRICT.

¶11

3 SACHIN PRAKASH, AGED 23 YEARS S/O. PRAKASAN, PAYIDATH HOUSE, KECHERI DESOM AND P.O., PERUMANNU VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK AND DISTRICT.

¶12

BY ADVS.

¶13

SRI.I.V.PRAMOD SRI.K.V.SASIDHARAN SMT.SAIRA SOURAJ P.

¶14

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT/STATE:

¶15

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

¶16

Bail Appl..No.6798 OF 2019

¶17

-2-

¶18

OTHER PRESENT:

¶19

SRI MAYA M.N PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶20

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.10.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

Bail Appl..No.6798 OF 2019

¶22

-3-

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

This application is filed under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.

¶25

The applicants herein are the accused Nos. 1 to 3 in Crime No.

¶26

789/2019 of the Kunnamkulam Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 326 read with Section 149 of IPC.

¶27

The informant is a third year B.Com. student of the M.G. College, Pazhanji. On 30.07.2019, at 2.45 p.m., the accused Nos. 1 to 10 in the aforesaid crime, are alleged to have formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of their common object, wrongfully restrained the victim and the first accused is alleged to have attacked the informant with an iron rod causing a fracture. The accused Nos. 2 and 3, who were armed with sticks, are alleged to have attacked the friend of the informant and caused injuries. Some allegations are made against the rest of the accused as well.

¶28

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicants, who

¶29

submitted that the informant and his friends were the actual aggressors.

¶30

It is further submitted that the applicants are students with no criminal

¶31

Bail Appl..No.6798 OF 2019

¶32

-4-

¶33

antecedents. He further points out that the accused Nos. 4 to 10 were granted an order of pre-arrest bail by the Court of Session.

¶34

Heard the learned Public Prosecutor, who opposed the prayer.

¶35

I have considered the submissions advanced. The case records

¶36

reveal that the injury resulting in fracture of bone was caused by the 1^st accused. The case of the prosecution is amply corroborated by medical records. However, insofar as the accused Nos. 2 and 3 are concerned, the prosecution has no case that they had inflicted any serious injuries on either the informant or his friend. Having regard to the role assigned to the accused Nos. 2 and 3, their lack of criminal antecedents and attendant facts, it does not appear that their custodial interrogation is required for an effective investigation.

¶37

In the result, this petition will stand partly allowed. The application insofar as it concerns the first applicant will stand dismissed. The applicant Nos. 2 and 3 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 Fifty thousand only) each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum. The above order shall be subject to

¶38

Bail Appl..No.6798 OF 2019

¶39

-5-

¶40

the following conditions:

¶41

i) The applicants 2 and 3 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.

¶42

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.

¶43

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

¶44

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.

¶45

SD/-

¶46

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., JUDGE

¶47

Ds 15.10.2019

Sabir Salim, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sabir Salim, 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

Dhanya.P.K, Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Samad P.K., Vs State of Kerala

Mohammed Ibrahim Vs State of Kerala

Haris Vs the State of Kerala

Varkey Vs State of Kerala

Nidhin Vs State of Kerala