Dismissed

Muneer K. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC15 Oct 2019Bail Appl./6890/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court dismissed a bail application. The Court refused to grant anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC due to the serious nature of allegations involving grievous hurt and held that the matter must be reserved for the jurisdictional Magistrate after interrogation.

What did the court decide?

The bail application dismissed; applicant directed to surrender for interrogation before the Investigating Officer.

Muneer K. Vs State of Kerala — Anticipatory Bail | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 23RD ASWINA, 1941

¶5

BAIL APPL.NO.6890 OF 2019

¶6

CRIME NO.148/2019 OF KOTTAKKAL POLICE STATION , MALAPPURAM

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

MUNEER K., AGED 26 YEARS, S/O. USMAN, RESIDING AT KOLADY HOUSE, CHERUSHOLA, KOTTAKKAL, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676 503.

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.J.R.PREM NAVAZ SHRI.SUMEEN S.

¶10

RESPONDENT/STATE:

¶11

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

¶12

SRI.AMJAD ALI, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15.10.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

¶15

B. A. No. 6890 of 2019

¶16

Dated this the 15^th day of October, 2019

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

The petitioner herein has been arrayed as the sole accused in the instant Anx.A1 Crime No.148/2019 of Kottakkal Police Station, which has been registered for offences punishable under Secs.341, 448, 324, 326 & 506 of the IPC, on the basis of FIS given by defacto complainant on 24.7.2019 at about 9.35 am in respect of the alleged incident which has happened on 23.7.2019 at about 4 pm.

¶19

The prosecution case in short is that, the petitioner accused is the immediate neighbour of the defacto complainant, and that on 23.7.2019 at about 4 pm, the petitioner accused had attacked the defacto complainant with an iron rod on his left hand causing fracture and also sustained serious injury on his leg, and thereafter the petitioner had trespassed into the house of the defacto complainant and pulled his wife down and pelted stones.

¶20

The learned Prosecutor would point out that the defacto complainant was immediately taken to the hospital and the medical records would clearly show that he has sustained segmental

¶21

..3..

¶22

B.A. No. 6890 /2019

¶23

displaced fracture ulan left forearm, and hemarthrosis left wrist, contusion left wrist and multiple contusion left forearm, and that this is clearly suggestive that the defacto complainant has been brutally attacked by the petitioner with an iron rod, and thus he has sustained fracture and other serious injuries, and that he was admitted in Almas Hospital for a period of 14 days.

¶24

The counsel for the petitioner would point out that the abovesaid allegations are false and baseless and as a matter of fact the defacto complainant herein was arrayed as accused in Crime No.151/2019 of Kottakkal Police Station, wherein the defacto complainant therein is the petitioner herein, and the allegation is that the accused therein (defacto complainant herein) has committed mischief, etc. The counsel for the petitioner would also urge that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not be necessary for the smooth conduct of investigation in this crime, and that the petitioner may be released on anticipatory bail subject to any stringent conditions.

¶25

The learned Prosecutor has pointed out that the investigation in respect of Crime No.151/2019 has disclosed that prima facie it is a false case, and further that the said case cannot be

¶26

..4..

¶27

B.A. No. 6890 /2019

¶28

said to be a counter case to the instant crime as it is not the rival version of the same transactions in respect of the incidents arsing in the instant crime.

¶29

After hearing both sides and after careful evaluation of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is constrained to take the view that the allegations disclosed against the petitioner are very serious and grave, inasmuch as the defacto complainant herein has suffered fracture and other serious injuries, and one of the main non bailable offence alleged in this case is the one as per Sec. 326 of the IPC, etc. Accordingly this Court is inclined to take the view that this is not a fit case to exercise the extra ordinary discretion under Sec.438 of the Cr.P.C. in the matter of grant of anticipatory bail.

¶30

The counsel for the petitioner would point out that the petitioner will immediately surrender before the Investigating Officer in relation to this crime, so that his bail application could be considered and decided by the jurisdictional Magistrate Court concerned on the same day of his production after the completion of interrogation process.

¶31

Taking note of the limited submission made on behalf of the petitioner, the following directions and orders are passed.

¶32

..5..

¶33

B.A. No. 6890 /2019

¶34

i. The petitioner will immediately surrender before the Investigating Officer (I.O.) in relation to the instant Crime No.148/2019 of Kottakkal Police Station for interrogation purposes without any further delay at any rate at 9 am on any day on or before 31.10.2019 or within such time limit that may be extended by the I.O. as he deems fit and proper.

¶35

ii. The petitioner will fully co-operate with the Investigating Officer in the conduct of the above interrogation process.

¶36

iii. After the interrogation process is over, the Investigating Officer will produce the petitioner before the jurisdictional Magistrate Court concerned in relation to this crime, and thereupon the said Court will consider and pass orders in the bail application of the petitioner on the same day of his production, and after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner's counsel and the learned Prosecutor, and after taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶37

It is further made clear that, it is within the domain of the learned Magistrate to consider the bail application of the petitioner after hearing both sides, and after taking due note of the facts and attendant circumstances in this case.

¶38

With these observations and directions, the above Bail Application will stand dismissed.

¶39

Sd/-

¶40

ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE

¶41

MMG

Muneer K. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muneer K. 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

Pramod Vs State of Kerala

Manoj Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Vineetha Vs State of Kerala

Thomas a.P., Vs Anu Thomas

Kiran C.K. Vs State of Kerala

Sachu, Vs State of Kerala