Dismissed

Muhammad Bilal v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC7 Aug 2020Bail Appl./4003/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC was disposed of. The bench denied bail due to the serious nature of the injury (scalp wound from sword) and the necessity for recovery of the weapon, directing surrender and subsequent production before the Magistrate.

What did the court decide?

Application for anticipatory bail dismissed; applicant directed to surrender within two weeks.

Muhammad Bilal 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

FRIDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 16TH SRAVANA, 1942

¶5

Bail Appl..No.4003 OF 2020

¶6

CRIME NO.42/2020 OF Karunaagapally Police Station, Kollam

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

MUHAMMAD BILAL AGED 22 YEARS KOLLAM PIN-690 523.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.SADCHITH.P.KURUP

¶10

RESPONDENT:

¶11

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

¶12

2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KARUNAGAPPALLY POLICE STATION, KOLLAM-690 518.

¶13

SRI.AMJAD ALI SR PP

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.08.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

Bail Appl..No.4003 OF 2020

¶16

¶17

ORDER

¶18

Dated this the 7th day of August 2020

¶19

This is an application filed under Section

¶20

438 of Cr.P.C seeking anticipatory bail.

¶21

Applicant is the 2^nd accused in Crime No.42/2020 of Karunaagapally Police Station, Kollam, for having allegedly committed offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 324, 307, 506 and r/w Section 149 of the IPC along with 4 identified and 10 identifiable persons.

¶22

The prosecution case in brief is that, on 05.01.2020, the applicant along with the other co-accused, who are members of an unlawful assembly, the common object of which was to cause hurt and commit murder of the defacto complainant. And in prosecution of the common object of that unlawful assembly, they attacked

¶23

Bail Appl..No.4003 OF 2020

¶24

¶25

the defacto complainant with dangerous weapons like swords, steel pipe etc., and caused hurt to the defacto complainant. The defacto complainant

¶26

evaded the attack. As a result of which he

¶27

escaped with an incise wound on his scalp

¶28

measuring 7x1 cm as evidenced by the wound certificate produced. There a specific

¶29

allegation that the applicant was wielding a sword. Some of the accused had already been arrested and released on bail. Some others have been granted anticipatory bail considering the fact that there is only minimal overt act attributed to them.

¶30

It is submitted by the learned Public

¶31

Prosecutor that the applicant has criminal

¶32

antecedents, because he is involved in another Crime No.1071/2019 of the same Police Station. In answer to that the learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that, in that crime he

¶33

Bail Appl..No.4003 OF 2020

¶34

¶35

was already granted anticipatory bail from this Court vide Annexure A4 order. Hence, the learned counsel for the applicant submits that, he may be granted anticipatory bail, he is willing to co-operate with the investigation.

¶36

After having heard both sides, I find

¶37

that there is an incised wound caused on the scalp of the defacto complainant which definitely could have proved fatal had not the defacto complainant evaded the blow with the sword. Moreover, the applicant will have to cooperate with the investigation for the recovery of the weapon allegedly used by him. Under the circumstances, the extra ordinary remedy of a pre-arrest bail cannot be granted to the applicant.

¶38

In the result the application is disposed of

¶39

with a direction that the applicant shall surrender before the investigating officer

¶40

Bail Appl..No.4003 OF 2020

¶41

within two weeks, and after interrogation, and recovery, he shall be produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate. The applicant shall be at liberty to apply for a regular bail which can be considered by the learned Magistrate on its merits and disposed of preferably on the very same day.

¶42

With these observations the petition is disposed of.

Sd/-

ASHOK MENON

JUDGE

spk

Muhammad Bilal v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muhammad Bilal 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

Fahad Vs State of Kerala

Anoop M.R. Vs State of Kerala

Visakh, Vs State of Kerala

Ajith @ Pathrose Vs State of Kerala

Prasanth Vs State of Kerala

Bineesh Kumar.B Vs the Inspector of Police