Dismissed

Mohammed Ibrahim v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC11 Oct 2019Bail Appl./6877/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal leave petition for anticipatory bail dismissed by the High Court of Kerala. The judge held that the petitioner actively participated at the crime scene in an incident involving attempted murder and inflicting injury, making pre-arrest bail inappropriate.

What did the court decide?

Application for summons bail dismissed with directions to surrender before the Investigating Officer.

Mohammed Ibrahim Vs State of Kerala — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 19TH ASWINA, 1941

¶5

Bail Appl..No.6877 OF 2019

¶6

CRIME NO.1483/2019 OF Cantonment Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram

¶7

PETITIONER/7th ACCUSED:

¶8

MOHAMMED IBRAHIM, AGED 19 YEARS, S/O. B. JALEEL, RESIDING AT T.C.48/1212(1), MOHAMMED MANZIL, (KOPRAPURA), PUTHUKKAD, PUTHANPALLY, POONTHURA P. O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695026.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.S.CHANDRASEKHARAN NAIR

¶10

RESPONDENT/STATE:

¶11

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESNETED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682031.

¶12

2 SHO, CANTONMENT POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001.

¶13

SRI. RAMESH CHAND, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.10.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

Bail Appl..No.6877 OF 2019

¶16

¶17

ORDER

¶18

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

¶19

The applicant herein is the 7^th accused in Crime No.1483/2019 of the Cantonment Police Station registered on 12.07.2019 under Sections 143, 147, 148, 294(b), 323, 341, 506(ii) and 307 read with Section 149 of the IPC.

¶20

The aforesaid crime relates to an incident which took place in the hallowed premises of the University College, Thiruvananthapuram. According to the prosecution, on 12.07.2019 the accused Nos. 1 to 7, who have been named in the FIR along with 30 others, who could be identified at sight, formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of their common object, committed acts of violence inside the college premises and inflicted a stab injury on the chest of one Akhil with intent to murder him. It is also alleged that in the violence unleashed by the accused, several students had sustained injuries.

¶21

The learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that a perusal of the FI statement would show that the applicant had no role to play in the infliction of injury on the body of Akhil by the principal accused.

¶22

Bail Appl..No.6877 OF 2019

¶23

¶24

According to the learned counsel, all that was mentioned by the 1^st informant in the FI statement is that the applicant along with rest of the accused had criminally intimidated him. The learned counsel asserts that the applicant is a student with no political affiliations. The rest of the accused having been arrested and released on bail, he be spared from the rigours of custodial interrogation, submits the learned counsel. It is further submitted that the applicant had recovered from serious ailments and his exams are round the corner.

¶25

The learned Public Prosecutor has strenuously opposed the prayer. He would refer to the case diary and specifically to the statements of Akhil, the main injured, as well as that of Aryan and pointed out that the applicant was, in fact, present at the scene of crime and that he had actively participated in the incident.

¶26

I have considered the submissions advanced and have carefully perused the case records. From the statements of the main injured Akhil and the other eyewitnesses, the role and participation of the applicant herein is quite evident. Having regard to the role assigned to him, the nature of injuries inflicted and the stage of investigation, I am not persuaded to grant an order of pre-arrest bail to the applicant.

¶27

Bail Appl..No.6877 OF 2019

¶28

¶29

Sri.S.Chandrasekharan Nair, the learned counsel appearing for the applicant, submitted that the applicant is a young man with no criminal antecedents and that he is prepared to co-operate with the investigation. In that view of the matter, certain directions can be issued. The applicant shall forthwith surrender before the Investigating officer. He shall be interrogated thoroughly and thereafter, shall be produced before the court having jurisdiction. If an application for bail is filed, same shall be considered and orders shall be passed on its merits, ideally on the same day itself.

¶30

This application is dismissed.

¶31

Sd/-

¶32

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V.,

¶33

JUDGE

¶34

DSV/11.10.19

Mohammed Ibrahim v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammed Ibrahim 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

George Daniel Vs State of Kerala

Biju C Raju, Vs the State of Kerala

Nanda Gopal Vs State of Kerala

Vishnu Mani, Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Dhanya.P.K, Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Samad P.K., Vs State of Kerala