Allowed

Ashique v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC9 Jul 2020Bail Appl./3016/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this anticipatory bail application filed under Section 438 Cr.PC, the High Court of Kerala granted bail to two young accused individuals accused of offences under the IPC in a clash between rival gangs. The court noted their youth, lack of antecedents, and disputed presence at the scene.

What did the court decide?

Granted anticipatory bail to two petitioners directing them to surrender within two weeks and execute a bond of Rs.50,000 each with two sureties, subject to specific conditions.

Ashique Vs State of Kerala — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF JULY 2020 / 18TH ASHADHA, 1942

¶5

Bail Appl..No.3016 OF 2020

¶6

CRIME NO.803/2020 OF Mathilakom Police Station , Thrissur

¶7

PETITIONER/S/A6 & A7:

¶8

1 ASHIQUE

¶9

AGED 22 YEARS S/O. SIDIQUE, KANNEZHATH HOUSE, P. O. PATHAZHAKKAD, S. N. PURAM VILLAGE, KODUNGALLUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 668.

¶10

2 BASITH AGED 20 YEARS SALEEM, KANNEZHATH HOUSE, P. O. PATHAZHAKKAD, S. N. PURAM VILLAGE, KODUNGALLUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 668.

¶11

BY ADVS. SRI.P.M.ABDUL JALEEL (KODUNGALLUR) SRI.A.G.VISWAMBHARAN SHRI.HASHIM V.H.

¶12

RESPONDENT/S/STATE & COMPLAINANT:

¶13

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

¶14

2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER MATHILAKAM POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN, PIN - 682 031.

¶15

OTHER PRESENT:

¶16

SRI.C.N.PRABHAKRAN SR PP

¶17

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.07.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

-2-

BA 3016/20

O R D E R

Dated this the 9th day of July 2020

¶22

This is an application for anticipatory bail filed under Section 438 Cr.PC.

¶23

The petitioners are accused 6 and 7 in Crime No.803/2020 of Mathilakam Police Station for having allegedly committed offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 326 and 307 read with 149 of the IPC.

¶24

The prosecution case is that on 12.05.2020 at about 8.15 p.m. the petitioners along with 7 other coaccused unlawfully assembled with the common object to murder the defacto complainant. In prosecution of the common object of that unlawful assembly, they reached a place called Mullam Bazar, where the defacto complainant was also called with his friend for a compromise talk regarding a previous dispute between them. The 1^st accused chopped the hand of the defacto complainant with a sword and caused a grievous injury to his hand.

¶25

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and also the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶26

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are aged 20 and 22 years,

¶27

BA 3016/20

¶28

-3-

¶29

respectively. The first petitioner is doing electrical work after ITI course, while the second petitioner is a second year B.Com student. They were not present at the scene of occurrence and that they were also not aware of the alleged incident, and they had absolutely no quarrel or previous enmity towards the defacto complainant, and that their names have been falsely included in the list of accused. The petitioners have no criminal antecedents. Therefore, they may be granted pre-arrest bail. They are willing to co-operate with the investigation. The fourth accused in the crime had approached this Court seeking anticipatory bail and was granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 19.6.2020 in BA No.3293/2020.

¶30

The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the Bail Application stating that it is a clash between two rival gangs and states that accused nos. 1, 3, 5, 8 and 9 have already been arrested. It is also submitted that going by the prosecution case, there is no particular overt act attributed to the petitioners, apart from the fact that they were members of the conspiracy and the unlawful assembly and present at the scene of occurrence. The fact regarding their presence is however disputed which needs to be proved by the prosecution during the trial. The

¶31

BA 3016/20

¶32

-4-

¶33

petitioners do not have any criminal antecedents.

¶34

Under the circumstances, I find that custodial interrogation of the petitioners may not be necessary. There is also no criminal antecedents against the petitioners and there is no possibility of their absconding.

¶35

In the result, the Bail Application is allowed. The petitioners are directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer within two weeks and in the event of their being arrested after interrogation, they shall be released on bail, on execution of bond for Rs.50,000/(Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) each with two solvent sureties, each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer, and on the following conditions:-

¶36

(i) They shall appear before the Investigating Officer on as and when called for, and shall co-operate with the investigation.

¶37

(ii) They shall not tamper with evidence or influence or intimidate witnesses.

¶38

(iii) They shall not leave the jurisdiction of the police station without the permission of the Investigating Officer.

¶39

(iv) They shall not get involved in any similar

¶40

BA 3016/20

¶41

-5-

¶42

offences during the bail period.

¶43

In case of breach of any of the bail conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to apply for cancellation of bail before the jurisdictional court.

Sd/-

ASHOK MENON

JUDGE

Ashique v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashique 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

Muhammed Nishad, Vs State of Kerala

Sugathan Vs State of Kerala

Moideen Jaisal K. Vs the State of Kerala

Irshad K.P. Vs State of Kerala

Shinoy E.K., Vs State of Kerala

Albin Abraham, Vs State of Kerala