Allowed

Safras, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC18 Oct 2019Bail Appl./6992/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an application for anticipatory bail. The court held that custodial interrogation was unnecessary as the injuries sustained by the complainant were minor and did not match the FIR allegations. Bail was granted subject to cooperation with investigation and other standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted; appearance required before IO within ten days. Bail bond of Rs.50,000 with two sureties. Conditions include cooperation with investigation and refraining from interfering wi

Safras, 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 RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 26TH ASWINA, 1941

¶5

Bail Appl..No.6992 OF 2019

¶6

CRIME NO.1015/2019 OF THALIPARAMBA POLICE STATION, KANNUR

¶7

PETITIONERS / ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 3:

¶8

1 SAFRAS, AGED 18 YEARS S/O.SHAFEER, AZHEEKKODANTAKATH HOUSE, PADAPPENGAD P.O., KOOVERI AMSOM, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT - 670 581.

¶9

2 JASIM, AGED 19 YEARS S/O.HAMEED, KAYAKKOOL HOUSE, PADAPPENGAD P.O., KOOVERI AMSOM, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT - 670 581.

¶10

3 MANSOOR A., AGED 23 YEARS S/O.SHAMSUDHEEN, AZHEEKKODANTAKATH HOUSE, PADAPPENGAD P.O., KOOVERI AMSOM, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT - 670 581.

¶11

4 MUSTAFA M., AGED 24 YEARS S/O.MAMMU, MAVUPPADI HOUSE, PADAPPENGAD P.O., KOOVERI AMSOM, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT - 670 581.

¶12

BY ADVS. SRI.V.A.SATHEESH SRI.V.T.MADHAVANUNNI

¶13

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶14

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, THROUGH S.H.O. TALIPARAMBA POLICE STATION, KANNUR DT. - 670 141.

¶15

Bail Appl..No.6992 OF 2019

¶16

..2..

¶17

OTHER PRESENT:

¶18

SRI. B. JAYASURYA SR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶19

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.10.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

Bail Appl..No.6992 OF 2019

¶21

..3..

¶22

ORDER

¶23

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

¶24

The applicants herein are the accused in Crime No.

¶25

1015 of 2019 of Taliparamba Police Station, registered under

¶26

Sections 448, 323, 324 & 308 r/w Section 34 of the IPC.

¶27

On 20.09.2019 at 10.30 pm, the applicants are alleged

¶28

to have trespassed into the house of the de facto complainant and the 1^st accused is alleged to have inflicted injuries with an iron pipe. The 2^nd accused is alleged to have stabbed him with a circular object and the 3^rd accused is alleged to have stamped him.

¶29

It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the applicants that the applicants are young men with no criminal antecedents. It is further urged that though very grave accusations are levelled, the wound certificate would not reveal that any serious injuries were inflicted.

¶30

Heard the learned Public Prosecutor, who opposed the prayer. I have gone through the case records and also the wound certificate dated 20.09.2019. All that is noted are minor contusions and abrasions which clearly do not correspond with the allegations in the FI statement. In the facts and circumstances, I do not think

¶31

..4..

¶32

Bail Appl..No.6992 OF 2019

¶33

that the custodial interrogation of the applicants are necessary for an effective investigation in the instant case.

¶34

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

¶35

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

¶36

sum. The above order shall be subject to the following conditions:

¶37

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.

¶38

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.

¶39

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

¶40

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.

¶41

Sd/- RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., JUDGE

¶42

Bka/18.10.2019

Safras, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Safras, 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

Muhamedali.K Vs the State of Kerala

Nandu Vs the Sub Inspector of Poli Ce

Praful Vs State of Kerala

Haneesha Noufal, Vs State of Kerala

Siddhik Pallath Vs State of Kerala

Unnikrishnan Vs the State of Kerala