Allowed

Saheer Alias Sha Paraichakam v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC4 Feb 2021Bail Appl./167/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bail application was admitted. The applicant, the second accused in an abduction and robbery case involving Sections 363, 364A, 342, and 395 IPC, sought statutory bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. The court allowed the application and directed the release on bail.

What did the court decide?

The applicant is directed to be released on bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. on execution of a bond for Rs. 50,000 with two solvent sureties.

Saheer Alias Sha Paraichakam Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 15TH MAGHA,1942

¶5

Bail Appl..No.167 OF 2021

¶6

CRIME NO.612/2020 OF Changaramkulam Police Station , Malappuram

¶7

PETITIONER/S:

¶8

SAHEER ALIAS SHA PARAICHAKAM AGED 30 YEARS PALLITHAZHATH(H), PARICHAKAM. MARANCHERI MALAPPURAM - 679581

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.M.R.SASITH

¶10

RESPONDENT/S:

¶11

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

¶12

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶13

OTHER PRESENT:

¶14

SRI.SANTHOSH PETER-SRPP

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

Bail Appl..No.167 OF 2021 2

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

Dated this the 4th day of February 2021 Application for regular bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.

¶19

The applicant is 2nd accused in Crime No.612/2020 of Changarakulam Police Station, Malappuram District for having allegedly committed offences punishable under Sections 363, 364A, 342 and 395 r/w Section 34 of IPC.

¶20

The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 29.10.2020 the applicant in furtherance of common intention with the other accused abducted the de facto complainant and thereafter robbed him of his gold chain, a Rolex watch, a diamond ring, a gold bangle, a pair of spectacles and a Toyota Fortuner car and after detaining him, they demanded Rs.3 crore and 60 lakhs as ransom.

¶21

The applicant was arrested on 03.11.2020 and has been in custody since then. The applicant states that he is innocent and the allegations are not true. Moreover, he has been in custody for more than the statutory period stipulated under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. and therefore seeks statutory bail.

¶22

Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the

¶23

Bail Appl..No.167 OF 2021 3

¶24

learned Public Prosecutor.

¶25

The learned Public Prosecutor admits that the final report has not yet been filed since there are two other accused yet to be apprehended. Hence the application is allowed and the applicant is directed to be released on bail under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. and on 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 jurisdictional court and on following conditions:-

¶26

(i) He shall not get involved in similar cases during the currency of the bail.

¶27

(ii) He shall appear before the investigating officer as and when called for.

¶28

(iii) He shall not tamper with evidence, intimidate or influence the witnesses .

¶29

In case of violation of the bail conditions, the prosecution is at liberty to move for cancellation of the bail before the jurisdictional court.

SD/-

ASHOK MENON

JUDGE

rmm

Saheer Alias Sha Paraichakam v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saheer Alias Sha Paraichakam 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

Shyju Vs State of Kerala

Sreedas Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Raoof Vs State of Kerala

Shahid Vs State of Kerala

Shiju.U Vs State of Kerala

Vishnu.B.C Handran Vs State of Kerala