Allowed

Abdul Azeez v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC11 Aug 2020Bail Appl./4154/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Kerala HC granted anticipatory bail to Abdul Azeez, an accused charged with murder and related offences under IPC. The Court found the prosecution case regarding conspiracy suspicious as only one accused was armed despite alleged common intention. Bail granted on conditions.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted contingent upon surrender within two weeks, execution of bond of Rs.50,000 with sureties, and conditions to appear before IO and not tamper with evidence.

Abdul Azeez Vs State of Kerala — Quashing and FIR | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 20TH SRAVANA, 1942

¶5

Bail Appl..No.4154 OF 2020

¶6

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

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

ABDUL AZEEZ AGED 40 YEARS

¶9

S/O.KOCHUMUHAMMED, ULLAKKAL HOUSE, SANTHIPURAM P.O., PALLINADA, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 668.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.NIREESH MATHEW

¶11

RESPONDENT:

¶12

STATE OF KERALA

¶13

REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031.

¶14

SRI. C.N.PRABHAKARAN SR PP

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.08.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

Bail Appl..No.4154 OF 2020

¶17

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Dated this the 11th day of August 2020

¶20

This is an application filed under Section

¶21

438 of Cr.P.C seeking anticipatory bail.

¶22

The applicant is the 2nd accused in Crime No.803/2020 of Mathilakom Police Station, for

¶23

having allegedly committed offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 326, 307 r/w Section 149 of the IPC, subsequently, offences under Sections 120B and 506(ii) of the IPC were also

¶24

added.

¶25

The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 12.05.2020 at about 8.15 p.m, the applicant along

¶26

with eight other accused hatched a conspiracy to murder Shanavas, the friend of the defacto complainant. In the prosecution of the common object of committing murder, the accused formed an unlawful assembly, committed riot armed with a dangerous weapon like a sword. They invited the

¶27

Bail Appl..No.4154 OF 2020

¶28

¶29

defacto complainant and his friend for settling their earlier differences and disputes. While the settlement talk was going on, the 1st accused was stealthily took out the sword concealed inside his dress and attacked Shanavas. He was able to defend the blow with his hand. As a result of which he

¶30

sustained a blow on his hand which almost severed his hand causing grievous hurt to him.

¶31

The applicant states that there is no overt act attributed him. Even though it is stated he too was a member of the unlawful assembly and had committed riot armed with deadly weapons, none except A1 was armed. Neither the applicant nor the

¶32

other accused except A1 inflicted hurt on the

¶33

defacto complainant or his friends. The only overt act is attributed to the 1st accused. It is also

¶34

pointed out by the applicant that the remaining

¶35

accused were not even aware of the 1st accused concealing a sword inside his dress. Hence, the

¶36

Bail Appl..No.4154 OF 2020

¶37

¶38

allegation of conspiracy or acting in the

¶39

prosecution of the common object of the unlawful assembly may not be attracted in this case. It is

¶40

further submitted that the applicant has no criminal antecedents.

¶41

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

¶42

The learned Public Prosecutor contends

¶43

that, a very grievous injury was caused to the friend of the defacto complainant. His hand was almost severed by the act of the 1st accused. The very intention of the accused to invite the

¶44

defacto complainant and his friend for a compromised talk was to attack them and commit murder. It is in the prosecution of the common object of that unlawful assembly, and result of the conspiracy that was hatched by the accused

¶45

that Shanavas was attacked brutally by A1. The applicant and the other co-accused are tried for

¶46

Bail Appl..No.4154 OF 2020

¶47

¶48

an offence punishable under Section 307 IPC for attempting to murder the friend of the defacto complainant. Considering the gravity of the offence, this is not a case fit for granting of anticipatory bail, submits the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶49

Considering the entirety of the facts and circumstances of this case, I find that none of the accused except A1 was armed. Had the applicant and the other accused have the intention to commit murder as suggested by the prosecution and hatched the conspiracy as stated by the prosecution, at least a few of them would have been armed with deadly weapons. The fact that 1st accused alone was armed with a sword, would cast suspicion on the case set up by the prosecution. It is also pertinent to note that in consequence to the attack by the 1st accused, none of the other

¶50

accused attacked either the defacto complainant or

¶51

Bail Appl..No.4154 OF 2020

¶52

¶53

his friend. Had it been the result of a conspiracy hatched by the accused, definitely the other accused also would have been armed. The fact that the first accused alone had caused grievous hurt to the friend of the defacto complainant with a sword indicates that the intension was something privy to him and was not shared with the other accused. However, the prosecution has still time to complete the investigation and to find out and collect more materials to prove the conspiracy. The FI Statement does not bring out a case of conspiracy. That itself would be a revolt against the prosecution case at this stage and therefore, I am not convinced with the prosecution case as far as the complicity of the applicant is concerned. He has no criminal antecedents. There is no likelihood of his committing similar offences and there is also no possibility of his absconding too. Hence, he is entitled to a pre-

¶54

Bail Appl..No.4154 OF 2020

¶55

¶56

arrest bail.

¶57

In the result, the application is allowed, and the applicant is directed to surrender before the investigating officer within two weeks. In the event of his being arrested, he shall be released on bail on the execution of 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 the following conditions;

¶58

1.He shall appear before the investigating

¶59

officer on all Mondays between 10 a.m and 12 noon for a period of two months or till filing

¶60

of the final report whichever is earlier.

¶61

2.He shall not tamper with evidence, influence or intimidate witnesses.

¶62

3.He shall not get involved in similar offences during the bail period.

¶63

In the event of violating the bail conditions, the

¶64

Bail Appl..No.4154 OF 2020

¶65

prosecution shall be at liberty to apply for cancellation of bail before the jurisdictional

court.

Sd/-

ASHOK MENON

JUDGE

SPK

Abdul Azeez v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Azeez 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

Mahesh Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Anil Jacob, Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Salim K.C. Vs State of Kerala

Anubha Sinha Vs State of Kerala

Joseph P Kuriakose Alias Achankunju Vs State of Kerala

Askar Ali Vs Public Prosecutor