Allowed

Abdul Razak @ Ashraf v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC26 Mar 2021Bail Appl./1809/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order grants anticipatory bail to two applicants accused of assault causing grievous hurt. The court found no need to deny bail as there was no recovery investigation and the main perpetrator was the first accused, directing surrender within two weeks and fixing bail conditions.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; applicants directed to surrender within two weeks; bail on execution of bonds with sureties and specific conditions.

Abdul Razak @ Ashraf 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

FRIDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 5TH CHAITHRA, 1943

¶5

Bail Appl..No.1809 OF 2021

¶6

CRIME NO.38/2021 OF KUTTIPURAM POLICE STATION , MALAPPURAM

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:

¶8

1 ABDUL RAZAK @ ASHRAF, AGED 46 YEARS, SON OF MAMMIKUTTY, MADATHIL VALAPPIL HOUSE, NADUVATTAM POST, KUTTIPURAM MALAPPURAM PIN-679571

¶9

2 IBRAHIM, AGED 44 YEARS, SON OF MAMMIKUTTY, MADATHIL VALAPPIL HOUSE, NADUVATTAM POST, KUTTIPURAM PIN-679571

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.BINU V V VEETTIL VALAPPIL

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

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

¶13

2 ADDL.R2. HAMEED HAJI K.K, S/O KUNJI MUHAMMED HAJI , KAYAL MADATHIL , KANAVATH HOUSE , NADUVATTAM P.O , KUTTIPURAM PIN-679571. (IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 09.03.2021 IN CRL. MA NO. 1 OF 2021 IN BA NO. 1809 OF 2021)

¶14

B.A.No.1809 OF 2021

¶15

¶16

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR R2 BY ADV. SAHEERA K. R2 BY ADV. SRI.T.H.ARAVIND

¶17

OTHER PRESENT:

¶18

SRI.SANTHOSH PETER – SR.PP

¶19

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

B.A.No.1809 OF 2021

¶21

¶22

ORDER

¶23

Dated this the 26th day of March, 2021

¶24

APPLICATION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL

¶25

The applicants are accused Nos. 2 and 3 in Crime
No.38 of 2021 of Kuttipuram Police Station, Malappuram, for
having allegedly committed offences punishable under Sections
341, 323 and 326 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The
prosecution case, in brief, is this:

¶26

2.On 02.02.2021, at about 8.30 PM, near Kolathool
Juma Masjid, the applicants, in furtherance of common intention
with the first accused, wrongfully restrained the defacto
complainant and due to the previous enmity towards him,
assaulted him by means of a dangerous weapon like a lever,
which was wielded by the first accused and caused grievous hurt
to him as his left thumb was fractured. The applicants had
allegedly beaten him with hands and also kicked him and caused
simple hurt to him.

¶27

3.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the

¶28

B.A.No.1809 OF 2021

¶29

applicants, the learned counsel appearing for the defacto
complainant as also the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶30

4.The applicants have no criminal antecedents. There
is nothing to be recovered from them. And, therefore, custodial
interrogation of the applicants may not be required. The
learned counsel appearing for the defacto complainant submits
that there is a constant threat from the applicants and that the
defacto complainant, who is a 57 years old man was kicked
brutally by the applicants. And, therefore, they may not be
granted bail.

¶31

5.After having heard the submissions on both sides, I
find that, in view of the fact that there is nothing to be recovered
from the applicants and that they have no criminal antecedents
and the main perpetrator of the crime is the first accused, there
is no need to decline pre-arrest bail to the applicants.

¶32

6.Hence, the application is allowed and the applicants
are directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer within
two weeks. In the event of their arrest, after interrogation,
they shall be released on bail on the execution of bonds for
Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) each with two solvent

¶33

B.A.No.1809 OF 2021

¶34

¶35

sureties, each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the
Investigating Officer, and on following further conditions:

¶36

(i)They shall appear before the Investigating Officer as
and when called for.

¶37

(ii)They shall not intimidate or influence witnesses and
tamper with evidence.

¶38

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

¶39

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

¶40

The bail application is allowed.

¶41

 Sd/-
 ASHOK MENON
 JUDGE

¶42

NR/26/03/2021

Abdul Razak @ Ashraf v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Razak @ Ashraf 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

Lejeesh Vs State of Kerala

Riyas T.V Vs Union of India

Danoop.v.v Vs State of Kerala

Safanaz Vs State of Kerala

1. Basil P Mathew Vs State of Kerala

Nikesh K.P Vs State of Kerala