Allowed

Muhammed Muhasin v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC13 Nov 2020Bail Appl./6913/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala granted anticipatory bail to the applicant under Section 438 Cr.P.C. regarding charges of attempted culpable homicide. Noting the prosecution version evolved after the First Information Report and the applicant's clean record, bail was allowed subject to conditions including vehicle recovery and appearance before the investigating officer.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted; directed to surrender within two weeks; conditional bail on arrest including bond of Rs.50,000.

Muhammed Muhasin 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 13TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 22ND KARTHIKA, 1942

¶5

Bail Appl..No.6913 OF 2020

¶6

CRIME NO.390/2020 OF Nilambur Police Station, Malappuram

PETITIONER/S:

MUHAMMED MUHASIN

AGED 28 YEARS

SON OF ABDUL MUNEER, PALATHINGAL HOUSE, MUKKATTA, P.O. NILAMBUR RS, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT -679330

¶11

BY ADV. SHRI.P.VENUGOPAL

¶12

RESPONDENT/S:

¶13

STATE OF KERALA 1 REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA -682031

¶14

STATION HOUSE OFFICER 2 NILAMBUR POLICE STATION, NILAMBUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679329

¶15

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶16

OTHERS PRESENT:

¶17

SRI.C.N.PRABHAKARAN SR PP

¶18

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.11.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

Bail Appl..No.6913 OF 2020 2

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

Dated this the 13th day of November 2020

¶22

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

¶23

The applicant is now arrayed as the 2nd accused in Crime No.390/2020 of Nilambur Police Station for having allegedly committed offences punishable under Sections 307 and 506(ii) r/w Section 34 of IPC.

¶24

The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 12.08.2020 at about 9 a.m., under the guise of settling a dispute between the de facto complainant and the 1st accused, accused Nos.3 and 4 (who were earlier arrayed as accused Nos.2 and 3), led the de facto complainant to an isolated place for an alleged mediation talk with the 1st accused. On reaching there, the 2nd accused, who is the applicant in the present application, allegedly handed over a knife to the 1st accused and with that knife, the 1st accused stabbed the de facto complainant repeatedly and attempted to commit culpable homicide. There were 27 sutures on his scalp and 1st accused is a known defaulter. He is involved in several crimes and he is a notorious criminal.

¶25

Bail Appl..No.6913 OF 2020 3

¶26

The applicant states that he is innocent and the allegations are not true and also stated that he has nothing to do with the assault as alleged and that he has not handed over the knife to the 1st accused.

¶27

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

¶28

The learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that in the FI statement, there is no mention that the applicant had handed over the knife to the 1st accused to stab the de facto complainant. Therefore, in the subsequent statement, in which he has been implicated in such a manner cannot be given much importance and therefore he need not be incarcerated.

¶29

The learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the application vehemently stating that the applicant having a major role in the incident because he is the one who handed over the knife to the 1st accused for being used to stab the de facto complainant. Accused Nos.3 and 4 who were already released on bail had a very limited role because they are the ones who had brought the de facto complainant to the scene of occurrence for having a mediation talk with the 1st accused. They were granted bail because their overt act was limited. The applicant with the

¶30

Bail Appl..No.6913 OF 2020 4

¶31

intention of using the knife for the purpose of stabbing the de facto complainant, he had handed over the knife to the 1st accused. Moreover, the applicant is a person who had brought the 1st accused to the scene of occurrence on his motorcycle and therefore the motorcycle also will have to be recovered from the applicant and he is required for custodial interrogation in that regard.

¶32

After having heard the submissions made on either side and perused the records available, I find that the applicant has no criminal antecedents as the 1st accused, who is a known criminal and the main perpetrator of this crime. The allegation against the applicant is that he had handed over a knife but that version does not find a place in the FI statement, and only comes subsequently. There is also an allegation that the applicant is the person who had

¶33

brought the 1st accused to the scene of occurrence on his motorcycle, which is also an improvement of the version in the FI statement. So, I note that there has been an improvement in the versions of the prosecution, which of course the prosecution is at liberty to prove during the trial. But as it stands now, the applicant herein had a very limited role in the alleged incident, if the prosecution case, as stated in the FI statement is to be relied upon. Just like the de facto complainant was brought to the scene

¶34

Bail Appl..No.6913 OF 2020 5

¶35

of occurrence by accused Nos.3 and 4, the applicant had brought the 1st accused. The intention was to have mediation, of the disputes between the de facto complainant and the first accused. However, he was abruptly stabbed by the 1st accused and inflicted grave injuries. The version of the prosecution that the applicant is a person who had incited the 1st accused and handed over the knife to him for being stabbed is something which the prosecution has to prove during the trial. In view of the fact that the applicant has no criminal antecedents, there is no reason to believe that he should be incarcerated for any purpose. However, the motorcycle which he has used will have to be recovered, for which cooperate with the investigation. Therefore, the applicant is directed to surrender before the investigating officer, within two weeks. In the event of his being arrested, after interrogation and recovery if any, he shall be released on bail on the 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 arresting officer and on following conditions:

¶36

(i) He shall appear before the investigating officer on all Mondays between 9 a.m. and 12 noon for a period of two months or till the filing of the final report whichever is earlier.

¶37

Bail Appl..No.6913 OF 2020 6

¶38

(ii) He shall not also attempt to influence the witnesses or

¶39

tamper with evidence.

¶40

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

¶41

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

Muhammed Muhasin v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muhammed Muhasin 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

Sreekumar Vs State of Kerala

Rajeesh Vs State of Kerala

Dhanesh Krishna Vs State of Kerala

Babu@ Hentry Vs State of Kerala

Ibrahim Vs State of Kerala

K M Prakash Vs State of Kerala