Allowed

Subaidha v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC1 Mar 2021Bail Appl./1180/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Ernakulam allowed a bail application filed under Section 438 CrPC by two accusedpersons alleged to have obstructed police officers. The court found no sufficient reason to deny bail due to lack of criminal antecedents and the applicants' claim of mistaken identity regarding the visitors, directing them to surrender within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed; directed to surrender within two weeks; bond of Rs. 50,000 each with two solvent sureties; conditions regarding evidence and non-reoffending.

Subaidha Vs State of Kerala — Anticipatory Bail | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON

¶4

MONDAY, THE 01ST DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 10TH PHALGUNA, 1942

¶5

Bail Appl..No.1180 OF 2021

¶6

CRIME NO.51/2021 OF TANUR POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM

¶7

PETITIONERS:

¶8

1 SUBAIDHA IFE OF ABDUL RAHMAN, AGED 47 YEARS, NECHIKKATTIL HOUSE, K PURAM PO, MALAPPURAM- 676307

¶9

2 MUHAMMED ADIL SON OF SADIK PASHA, AGED 18 YEARS, NELLIYERI HOUSE, K PURAM PO, MALAPPURAM-676307

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.P.C.ANIL KUMAR

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

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

¶13

2 INSPECTOR OF POLICE TANUR POLICE STATION, POLICE STATION RD, TANUR, KERALA 676302

¶14

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶15

OTHER PRESENT:

¶16

SMT.V.SREEJA-PP

¶17

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

Bail Appl..No.1180 OF 2021

¶19

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

Dated this the 1^st day of March 2021

¶22

This Bail Application filed under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code was heard through Video

¶23

Conference.

¶24

The applicants are the 2nd and 3rd accused in Crime No. 51/2021 of Tanur Police Station, Malappuram District for having allegedly committed offence punishable under Section 353 read with Section 34 of IPC.

¶25

The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 28-012021 at about 10.05 p.m., while the officers of Tanur Police Station came to arrest the 1st accused herein, in connection with crime No. 45/2021 of Medical College Police Station, Kozhikode the applicants along with the 1st accused in furtherance of common intention deterred the police officers from performing their duty as public servants.

¶26

Bail Appl..No.1180 OF 2021

¶27

¶28

The applicants state that they are innocent and the allegations are not true. The 1st applicant is running a fancy and footwear shop in Tanur Grama Panchayath. The 2nd accused is his mother in law and the 3rd accused is a staff of the shop, who is only aged 18 years. They do not have any criminal antecedents. The 1st accused has subsequently being arrested. It is stated that the applicants did not know that the persons, who had come there were police officers because they were not in uniform and they also did not have any warrant with them. It is stated that they were under the mistaken impression that someone has come to kidnap or abduct the 1st accused and therefore, they admit having caused some obstructions. The applicants did not cause any hurt to the police officers. Under circumstances, I find no reason for declining anticipatory bail.

¶29

Hence, the application is allowed. The applicants are directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer, within two weeks. In the event of their arrest, they shall

¶30

Bail Appl..No.1180 OF 2021

¶31

¶32

be released on bail on the execution of a bond for Rs. 50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each with two solvent sureties for the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer and on following conditions:

¶33

Investigating Officer as and when

¶34

called for.

¶35

(ii) They shall not tamper with evidence,

¶36

intimidate or influence witnesses.

¶37

(iii) They shall not get involved in similar offences during the bail period.

¶38

In case of the breach of the bail conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to apply for cancellation of the bail before the jurisdictional court.

¶39

(Sd/-)

¶40

ASHOK MENON JUDGE

¶41

Subaidha v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subaidha 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

Aboobacker Vs State of Kerala

Sakir P Vs State of Kerala

Vishnu Radhakrishnan Vs State of Kerala

Varghese Vs State of Kerala

Shoukkath Vs State of Kerala

Shijil T a Vs State of Kerala