Dismissed

Muhammed Shahid v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC1 Oct 2020Bail Appl./5167/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed an application for anticipatory bail filed by an accused charged with kidnapping for ransom and robbery. The court held that the gravity of the offence required custodial interrogation and the application was not a fit case for pre-arrest bail.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed; applicant directed to surrender before investigating officer within two weeks.

Muhammed Shahid 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 01ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 9TH ASWINA, 1942

¶5

Bail Appl.No.5167 OF 2020

¶6

CRIME NO.653/2019 OF Town North Police Station, Palakkad

¶7

PETITIONER/S:

¶8

MUHAMMED SHAHID AGED 22 YEARS, S/O SHAHUL HAMEED, POKKALATHIL HOUSE, KARALMANNA P O, CHERPULASSERY, PALAKKAD DISTRICT – 679506.

¶9

BY ADVS. SHRI.SATHEESH V.T. SRI.P.CHANDRASEKHAR SRI.K.K.MOHAMED RAVUF SMT.K.VIDYA

¶10

RESPONDENT/S:

¶11

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM – 682031.

¶12

OTHER PRESENT:

¶13

SRI.C.N.PRABHAKARAN, SR PP

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.10.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

Bail Appl.No.5167 OF 2020

¶16

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

Dated this the 1st day of October 2020

¶19

This is an application for anticipatory bail

¶20

under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.

¶21

The applicant is the 2nd accused in Crime No.653/2020 of Palakkad North Police Station for having allegedly committed the offences punishable under Sections 323, 341, 364A, 394 and 506 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C.

¶22

The prosecution case, in brief, is that the defacto complainant was travelling from Bangalore to Palakkad on 13.12.2019. His brother-in-law, Sajeev Karun, was involved in some financial business by name “GENTREND TRADES AND SERVICES Ltd.” and in connection with that, he had allegedly cheated

¶23

several persons and owes money to them. The applicant and other co-accused are alleged to be

¶24

persons interested in getting money from the

¶25

Bail Appl.No.5167 OF 2020

¶26

¶27

aforesaid Sajeev Karun. In order to extort money

¶28

from Sajeev Karun, they had allegedly kidnapped the defacto complainant for the purpose of ransom after

¶29

he alighted from the train, taken him in a car and

¶30

assaulted him and also robbed him of cash and bracelet and he was also forcibly made to transfer Rs.One lakh from his bank account to the account of

¶31

the 1st accused through Google Pay.

¶32

The applicant states that he is innocent and the allegations are untrue. Only because of the brother-in-law of the de facto complainant is

¶33

involved in so many cases and owes money to different persons by way of abundant caution, he has filed false against the applicant, and therefore, he prays that he may be granted anticipatory bail.

¶34

The 1st accused was also arrested and the

¶35

bracelet was already recovered from him. The

¶36

applicant states that he has not taken anything and

¶37

no purpose would be served by his incarceration.

¶38

Bail Appl.No.5167 OF 2020

¶39

Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant

¶40

and the defacto complainant as also the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶41

vehemently opposed the application for bail on the ground that the applicant was actively involved in the robbery of Rs.8,000/- in cash as also the bracelet and though it was recovered from the 1st

¶42

accused, the applicant was also playing a very active role in assaulting the defacto complainant. The applicant had approached the Sessions Court, Palakkad for anticipatory bail. Considering the gravity of the offence and the manner in which it was committed,

¶43

I find that the applicant definitely will have to be subjected to custodial interrogation for the purpose

¶44

of investigation and this is not a fit case where he

¶45

can be granted the liberty to get released on prearrest bail.

¶46

Bail Appl.No.5167 OF 2020

¶47

In the result, the application is dismissed and

¶48

the applicant is directed to surrender before the

¶49

investigating officer within two weeks. The

¶50

investigating officer shall, after interrogation and

¶51

recovery, if any, shall produce him before the jurisdictional Magistrate, where he is at liberty to apply for regular bail, and the Magistrate shall consider and dispose of the same preferably on the very same day.

Sd/-

ASHOK MENON

JUDGE

dkr

Muhammed Shahid v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muhammed Shahid 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

S Praveen Vs State of Kerala

Gopakumar Vs State of Kerala

Mukesh Gopinath Vs State of Kerala

Muhammed Nazim K.S Vs State of Kerala

Shihana.S Vs State of Kerala

Muhammed Sharafudheen Vs State of Kerala