Partly allowed

Abdul Hakeem v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC4 Nov 2020Bail Appl./5491/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed an anticipatory bail application in part. Bail was granted to respondents except the 2nd applicant, who must surrender for recovery of a weapon. Others must surrender within a month and furnish bail bonds.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted to all applicants except the 2nd applicant, who must surrender for recovery of the weapon before applying for regular bail. Others to surrender within one month and execute bonds.

Abdul Hakeem Vs State of Kerala — Anticipatory Bail | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 13TH KARTHIKA, 1942

¶5

Bail Appl..No.5491 OF 2020

¶6

CRIME NO.754/2020 OF BALUSSERY POLICE STATION , KOZHIKODE

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:

¶8

1 ABDUL HAKEEM AGED 54 YEARS PUTHIYAMBARAMMAL HOUSE, POONOOR, UNNIKULAM P.O., UNNIKULAM AMSOM, POONOOR DESOM, KOZHIKODE, NOW RESIDING AT FLAT NO.G 2-4, POLICE STATION MODEL TOWN, DELHI – 110 009 KOZHIKODE PIN - 673 574

¶9

2 MISHAB ALI AGED 21 YEARS S/O. ABDUL HAKEEM, PUTHIYAMBARAMMAL HOUSE, POONOOR, UNNIKULAM P.O., UNNIKULAM AMSOM, POONOOR DESOM, THAMARASSERY TALUK 673 574

¶10

3 ABID MAHABOOB AGED 18 YEARS S/O. ABDUL HAKEEM, PUTHIYAMBARAMMAL HOUSE, POONOOR, UNNIKULAM P.O., UNNIKULAM AMSOM, POONOOR DESOM, THAMARASSERY TALUK, KOZHIKODE 673 574

¶11

4 MAJEED AGED 51 YEARS PUTHIYAMBARAMMAL HOUSE, POONOOR, UNNIKULAM P.O., KOZHIKODE 673 574

¶12

5 MUHAMMED BASHEER AGED 56 YEARS PUTHIYAMBARA HOUSE, POONOOR, UNNIKULAM P.O. 673 574

¶13

6 SHABEER ALI AGED 26 YEARS PUTHIYAMBARA HOUSE, POONOOR, UNNIKULAM P.O., 673 574

¶14

Bail Appl..No.5491 OF 2020

¶15

¶16

7 SHABNAS ALI AGED 22 YEARS PUTHIYAMBARA HOUSE, POONOOR, UNNIKULAM P.O., 673 574 BY ADV. SRI.R.SUDHISH

¶17

RESPONDENT:

¶18

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM PIN-682031 BY SRI.C.N.PRABHAKARAN-SR.PP

¶19

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.11.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

Bail Appl..No.5491 OF 2020

¶21

¶22

ORDER

¶23

Dated this the 04^th day of November, 2020

¶24

APPLICATION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL

¶25

The applicants are accused in Crime No.754/2020 of

¶26

Balussery Police Station, Kozhikode, for having allegedly
committed offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148,
341, 323, 324, 294(b) and 506 r/w Section 149 of the IPC.
Subsequently, offence under Section 326 IPC was also
incorporated. The applicants are all related. The applicant Nos. 2
and 3 are the sons of the 1stapplicant, while applicant Nos. 4
and 5 are his brothers and applicant Nos.6 and 7 are the
children of his brothers. The Prosecution case, in brief, is this:

¶27

2.On 22.7.2020, at about 7.20 p.m at Poonoor

¶28

Mauthumpoyil, the applicants and some other identifiable
persons, formed an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of the
common object of the said unlawful assembly, attacked the
defacto complainant and his friends and assaulted them with
dangerous weapons like wooden reapers, hurled abuses at them
and intimidated them and also caused a grievous injury to the
fingers of the defacto complainant's friend and thus committed

¶29

¶30

Bail Appl..No.5491 OF 2020

¶31

the offence. The applicants state that the allegations are not
true. In fact, the defacto complainant's friend had purchased a
vehicle from Delhi, where the 1stapplicant was employed as a
Police Officer. Accusing him for not getting the NOC for that
vehicle as agreed, the defacto complainant and his friends
approached the 1stapplicant at his home while he was on leave,
and assaulted him. They also assaulted his wife, and outraged
her modesty when she came to defend him. It is stated that both
the 1stapplicant and his wife were hospitalised for treatment
consequent to the assault. On the very next day, the 1stapplicant
and his wife approached the Police and filed a complaint, in
consequence of which, a crime was registered at the Balussery
Police Station as Crime No.740/2020 for offences punishable
under Sections 143, 147, 148, 448, 341, 324 r/w Section 149 of
IPC.

¶32

3.It is also stated that even though the modesty of the 1st
applicant's wife was outraged by the accused persons, including
the defacto complainant, the Police authorities deliberately
excluded the offence punishable under Section 354 IPC. The FIR
in this case was registered on only 29.07.2020 as a counterblast
to Crime No.740/2020 against the defacto complainant and his
friends. The applicants submit that no serious injuries have been

¶33

¶34

Bail Appl..No.5491 OF 2020

¶35

caused and that the applicants are not likely to abscond and they
are willing to co-operate with the investigation and hence, they
may be granted pre-arrest bail.

¶36

4.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
applicants and the learned Public Prosecutor. There is no doubt
that there was a counter case also registered against the defacto
complainant and his friends for having allegedly trespassed into
the property of the 1stapplicant and assaulted him and his wife.
The incident took place inside the property of the 1stapplicant.
The prosecution case is that the defacto complainant and his
friends had gone there to ask about why the NOC for the vehicle
which was purchased from Delhi was not arranged by the 1st
applicant, even though he had agreed to do so.

¶37

5.Going by the facts and circumstances of this case, it is
pertinent to note that, the defacto complainant and his friend,
who had purchased the vehicle from Delhi, alone did not go to
the 1stapplicant's house to enquire about the NOC, they were
accompanied by several other persons which indicates the hostile
attitude of the defacto complainant and his friends against the 1st
applicant, and they wanted to question the first applicant about
his failure to arrange the NOC, and there was a scuffle between
the two groups, in consequence of which, injuries were sustained

¶38

¶39

Bail Appl..No.5491 OF 2020

¶40

by the defacto complainant's friend. Grievous injury was
sustained by him, as two of his fingers were fractured. The
weapon that was used is a reaper and it was wielded by the 2nd
accused. None of the other accused have allegedly used any
dangerous or deadly weapons.

¶41

6.From this, it is very clear that the applicants had no
intention to cause any grievous hurt or serious injuries to the
defacto complainant or his friends. As a scuffle ensued, there
were injuries caused on both sides. But, the fact that the defacto
complainant and his friends had entered the property of the
applicant in a large number forming an unlawful assembly
indicates that they were aggressors. And, moreover, the 1st
applicant is a Police Officer, employed in Delhi. None of the
other accused also have any criminal antecedents. But recovery
of the reaper, which was allegedly used by the 2ndapplicant will
have to be made, and for that he will have to be co-operate, and,
therefore, he is not entitled to anticipatory bail.

¶42

7.In the result, the application is allowed in part, and the
applicants are directed to surrender before the Investigating
Officer within a month. In the event of they being arrested, all
the applicants, except the 2ndapplicant, shall be released on bail
on execution of bonds for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand

¶43

¶44

Bail Appl..No.5491 OF 2020

¶45

only) each with two solvent sureties each, for the like amount to
the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer and on the following
further conditions:

¶46

(i)They shall appear before the Investigating Offcer asi
and when called for.

¶47

(ii)They shall not tamper with evidence, infuence orl
intimidate witnesses.

¶48

(iii)They shall not get involved in any similar

¶49

offences during the bail period.

¶50

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.

¶51

The 2ndapplicant, shall after interrogation and
recovery, be produced before the jurisdictional court, where he is
at liberty to apply for a regular bail and the application so filed
shall be disposed of preferably on the very same day.

¶52

Sd/-

¶53

ASHOK MENON
 JUDGE

¶54

NR/04/11/20

Abdul Hakeem v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Hakeem 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

Bhadran Vs State of Kerala

Sreemathi Pillai Vs State of Kerala

Sreemathi Pillai Vs State of Kerala

Sivakumar C. Vs State of Kerala

Mithul Mohan Vs State of Kerala

Renjith Raju Vs State of Kerala