Partly allowed

A.K. Khaleel v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC25 Jan 2021Bail Appl./218/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a bail application where five accused were charged with rioting and damaging a police jeep during a victory procession. The court held that IPC offences were bailable but excluded unauthorized detention by directing surrender to the investigating officer within two weeks and imposing a deposit for public property damage.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed subject to surrender within two weeks, bonds of Rs.50,000/-, deposit of Rs. 10,000/- each for damage, and conditions against tampering.

A.K. Khaleel 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

MONDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 5TH MAGHA, 1942 Bail Appl..No.218 OF 2021

¶5

CRIME NO.775/2020 OF CHITTARIKAL POLICE STATION, KASARGOD

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1 A.K. KHALEEL AGED 34 YEARS ANCHILLATH KUPPARAYIL HOUSE, ARIYANKALLU, PERUMBATTA.P.O, BHEEMNADI AMSOM, VELLARIKUNDU TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT- 671313 2 M MUHAMMEDALI S/O. RUKHIYA, AGED 33 YEARS, MOULAKKIRIYATH HOUSE, AMILERI, PERUMBATTA.P.O, BHEEMNADI AMSOM, VELLARIKUNDU TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT- 671313 3 A G ABDUL KHADER @ KHADER KORAPPAYIL S/O.KUNHABDULLA, AGED 28 YEARS, KUPPARA HOUSE, KAKKDADAVU.P.O, BHEEMNADI AMSOM, VELLARIKUNDU TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT- 671313 4 P M MUBASHEER S/O SHAHUL HAMEED, AGED 18 YEARS, PUZHAKKARA HOUSE, MAUKODE, PERUMBATTA.P.O, BHEEMNADI AMSOM, VELLARIKUNDU TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT- 671313 5 P M RASHID S/O MUSTHAFA, AGED 27 YEARS,

¶8

Bail Appl..No.218 OF 2021

¶9

¶10

PATHAKUTHIKKAL HOUSE, ARIYANKALLU, PERUMBATTA.P.O, BHEEMNADI AMSOM, VELLARIKUNDU TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT- 671313

¶11

BY ADVS. SRI.V.T.MADHAVANUNNI SRI.V.A.SATHEESH SRI.M.VIVEK RABINDRANATH

¶12

RESPONDENT:

¶13

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

¶14

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶15

OTHER PRESENT:

¶16

SMT.V.SREEJA -PP

¶17

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

Bail Appl..No.218 OF 2021

¶19

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

Dated this the 25^th day of January, 2021

¶22

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

¶23

The applicants are accused Nos. 1 to 5 in Crime No.775 of 2020 of Chittarikkal Police Station, Kasaragod District, for having allegedly committed offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148 read with Section 149 of the IPC and under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act (PDPP Act for short).

¶24

The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 16.12.2020 at about 4.40 p.m., consequent to the Grama Panchayath Elections the applicants were allegedly celebrating the victory of their candidate and were taking out a victory procession in a jubilant mood. The police jeep came there as a part of maintaining law and order. At that time, there was stone pelting or against the police jeep the

¶25

Bail Appl..No.218 OF 2021

¶26

¶27

mob turned violent and they committed riot in prosecution of the common object of an unlawful assembly of which they were all members. As a result of stone pelting the wind shield and the beacon light of the police jeep bearing registration No. KL-01-BW-5985 got damaged, resulting in a loss of Rs. 20,000/- to public property.

¶28

The applicants state that they are innocents and the allegations are not true. They are all sympathizers of Indian Union Muslim League and that, they have been arrayed as accused is only for political reasons. No injury was caused to any policemen or anyone else. The applicants also do not have any criminal antecedents and therefore seek pre-arrest bail. They are willing to cooperate with the investigation.

¶29

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicants and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶30

The learned Public Prosecutor admits that the applicants have no criminal antecedents. However, the

¶31

Bail Appl..No.218 OF 2021

¶32

¶33

police jeep was damaged and the RTO has assessed the damage at Rs. 20,000/-. Therefore, the application for bail is vehemently opposed.

¶34

After having heard the submissions on both sides, I find that the offences alleged against the applicants under the Indian Penal Code are all bailable. The only non-bailable offence is under the PDPP Act. The applicants have not used any deadly weapons to attack the police men nor did they deter them from carrying out their duty as public servants. As a result of stone pelting by the mob consisting of about 30 persons including the applicants, damage was caused to the public property, which will have to be made good in case the applicants are released on bail.

¶35

Therefore, the applicants are directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer within two weeks. In the event of their being arrested, after interrogation, they shall be released on bail on the execution of bonds for Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty thousand only), each with two

¶36

Bail Appl..No.218 OF 2021

¶37

¶38

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

¶39

(i) They shall deposit a sum of Rs. 10,000/- each as damage to the public property before the jurisdictional court.

¶40

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

¶41

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

¶42

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

¶43

In case of breach of any of the bail conditions, the

¶44

prosecution shall be at liberty to apply for cancellation of the bail before the jurisdictional court.

¶45

(Sd/-) ASHOK MENON JUDGE

¶46

A.K. Khaleel v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.K. Khaleel 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

Joy Vs State of Kerala

Sakkariya K.T Vs State of Kerala

Muhammed Ali Vs State of Kerala

Jafar Vs State of Kerala

Sreejith Vs State of Kerala

Binu P Jayan Vs State of Kerala