Allowed

Fahad v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC6 Aug 2020Bail Appl./3576/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court granted anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. to an 18-year-old accused facing charges of rioting and unlawful assembly. Custodial interrogation was deemed unnecessary, and bail was granted subject to conditions including surrender and cooperation with investigation.

What did the court decide?

The application is allowed. The applicant is directed to surrender within two weeks and is released on bail upon execution of a bond and sureties subject to specific conditions.

Fahad Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 06TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 15TH SRAVANA, 1942 Bail Appl..No.3576 OF 2020

¶5

CRIME NO.197/2020 OF Chavakkad Police Station , Thrissur

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

FAHAD

¶8

AGED 18 YEARS S/O. KABEER, KUNJEERAKATH HOUSE, BLANGAD P.O. KADAPURAM VILLAGE, THRISSUR 680 506.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.E.A.HARIS

¶10

RESPONDENT/S:

¶11

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

¶12

OTHER PRESENT:

¶13

SRI.C.N.PRABHAKARAN SR PP

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.08.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

Bail Appl..No.3576 OF 2020 2

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

Dated this the 6th day of August 2020

¶18

Application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.

¶19

The applicant is the 1^st accused in Crime No.197/2020 of Chavakkad Police Station for having allegedly committed offence punishable under Section 143, 147, 148, 188, 270, 341, 323, 324 and 308 r/w Section 149 of IPC and under Section 118(e) of the Kerala Police Act and under Section 3 of the Kerala Epidemic Disease Ordinance Act.

¶20

The prosecution case in brief is that on 25.03.2020 at about 8.30 p.m., due to previous enmity with the de facto complainant, the applicant along with other accused were members of unlawful assembly with common object of causing hurt to the de facto complainant and his friend. In prosecution of the common object of the unlawful assembly, the accused committed riot armed with deadly weapons like iron pipe and the applicant hit the de facto complainant with an iron pipe which was evaded by him, and he escaped with minor injuries. The others also attacked him and fisted as well as kicked him, and thus the accused committed the

¶21

Bail Appl..No.3576 OF 2020 3

¶22

offence as alleged. It is further stated that there were some dispute and altercation during a football match between members of two rival clubs, and there was enmity over that dispute, but the allegation that the applicant had deliberately attacked the de facto complainant with intention to commit culpable homicide is not true. It is also stated that the applicant has no criminal antecedents. Accused 2 to 4 were already arrested and the weapon allegedly used by accused has been recovered. Hence no purpose will be served by the incarceration of the applicant who claims that he is only 18 years of age and is a plus two student.

¶23

Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶24

There are no records available regarding any previous antecedents of the applicant. The age of the applicant is also not confirmed by the learned Public Prosecutor. However, the weapon allegedly used by the applicant has already been recovered in consequent to the arrest of the other co-accused. It is also stated that some other persons also will have to be identified for which the applicant has to be subjected to interrogation. The applicant is willing to co-operate with the investigation. I find that custodial interrogation of the applicant may not be necessary. Hence, the

¶25

Bail Appl..No.3576 OF 2020 4

¶26

application is allowed. The applicant is directed to surrender before the investigating officer within two weeks and after interrogation in the event of his being arrested, he shall be released

¶27

on bail on execution of a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the investigating officer and on following further conditions:

¶28

(i) He shall appear before the investigating officer as and when called for,

¶29

(ii) He shall not attempt to influence the witnesses or tamper with evidence and,

¶30

(iii) He shall not get involved in any other similar crimes during the currency of the bail.

¶31

In case of violation of any bail condition, the prosecution is at liberty to apply for cancellation of the bail before the jurisdictional court.

Sd/-

ASHOK MENON

JUDGE

rmm

Fahad v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Fahad 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

Vipin Kumar Vs Public Prosecutor

Ullas Sebastian Vs State Ofkerala

Midhun Krishna Vs State of Kerala

Anoop M.R. Vs State of Kerala

Visakh, Vs State of Kerala

Prince @ Hari Vs State of Kerala