Allowed

Noorjahan, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC19 Dec 2019Bail Appl./8805/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed an anticipatory bail application filed by Noorjahan, Saleena, and Chandran in connection with an unlawful assembly case. Ruling that no prejudice against women was mentioned in the FIR and custodial interrogation was not necessary, the court granted bail subject to specific conditions for investigation cooperation and no reoffending.

What did the court decide?

Application allowd; applicants to appear for interrogation within ten days; bail granted on bond of Rs.50,000 each with two sureties subject to conditions of cooperation and non-reoffending.

Noorjahan, 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

THURSDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 / 28TH AGRAHAYANA, 1941

¶5

BAIL APPL..NO.8805 OF 2019

¶6

CRIME NO.2810/2019 OF FORT POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶7

PETITIONERS / A7 TO A9 :

¶8

1 NOORJAHAN, AGED 54 YEARS D/O.SHAHUL HAMEED, T.C.39/1832, HOUSE NO.35, KARIMADAM COLONY, MANACAUD VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶9

2 SALEENA, AGED 32 YEARS D/O.THANGAL KUNJU, T.C.39/1904, KARIMADOM COLONY, MANACAUD VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶10

3 CHANDRAN, AGED 39 YEARS S/O.SURAJAN, T.C.39/1904, KARIMADAM COLONY, MANACAUD VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.SHAJIN S.HAMEED

¶12

RESPONDENT/STATE :

¶13

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶14

SRI B. JAYASURYA SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.12.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

BAIL APPL..NO.8805 OF 2019

¶17

¶18

ORDER

¶19

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

¶20

On 02.11.2019, Crime No.2810 of 2019 of the Fort Police Station was registered inter alia under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341 and 332 read with Section 149 of the IPC arraying four named persons and ten others who could be identified at sight as accused. The informant is the Sub Inspector of Police, Fort Police Station. Prosecution allegation is that, on 02.11.2019 at about 4.45 p.m., while the informant, along with his subordinate police officers had gone to the Karimadam colony to apprehend the accused in Crime No.2809 of 2019 of the Fort Police Station, the named accused along with ten others formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of their common object, the 1^st accused is alleged to have inflicted injuries with a glass piece and thereby deterred the police officers from discharging their official duty.

¶21

Heard Sri. Shajin S. Hameed, the learned counsel appearing for the applicants, who submitted that applicant Nos.1 and 2 are the mother and sister of the 1^st accused and the 3^rd applicant is his brother-inlaw. According to the learned counsel, the injury was inflicted by the 1^st accused and there is not even a whisper in the initial statement that the applicants herein had obstructed the police personnel or that they had

¶22

BAIL APPL..NO.8805 OF 2019

¶23

¶24

deterred the officers from discharging their duty. According to the learned counsel, the 1^st accused was manhandled by the police while he was in their custody and certain proceedings were initiated by the learned Magistrate against the police personnel when the 1^st accused complained before the court about the physical abuse.

¶25

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer. It is

¶26

submitted that the applicants herein had also taken part in the incident.

¶27

I have considered the submissions advanced and have perused the records, which are made available. The First Information Statement was lodged by a police officer. Nowhere in the statement has he stated that women were also involved. The names of the main aggressors have been stated in the FIR itself. No other crimes are reported against the applicants herein. In the facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the custodial interrogation of the applicants is not necessary for an effective investigation in the instant case.

¶28

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 Fifty thousand only) each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum. The above order shall be subject to the

¶29

BAIL APPL..NO.8805 OF 2019

¶30

¶31

following conditions:

¶32

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.

¶33

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.

¶34

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

¶35

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.

¶36

Sd/-

¶37

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶38

JUDGE

¶39

Noorjahan, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Noorjahan, 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

Pias, Vs the State of Kerala

P.v.Sajith Vs State of Kerala

Akhil N. Vs State of Kerala

O. N. Yesodharan Vs State of Kerala

Sreejan v Sagar, Vs the Station House Officer

Sumitha @ Sumi, Vs State of Kerala