Dismissed

Rafi A.H v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC1 Jul 2021Bail Appl./3346/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala disposed of an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The court rejected the plea, noting that the petitioner had allegedly used a knife causing injuries, making weapon recovery inevitable for Sections 307 and 324 IPC.

What did the court decide?

Application for anticipatory bail is dismissed as the petitioner is not considered a fit case for bail.

Rafi A.H 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 K.HARIPAL

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 1^ST DAY OF JULY 2021 / 10TH ASHADHA, 1943 BAIL APPL. NO. 3346 OF 2021

¶5

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶6

RAFI A.H AGED 36 YEARS ALUNGAL HOUSE PALAPETTY PERUMBADAPPU VELIYAMKODE, PIN - 679579 BY ADVS. K.REEHA KHADER SHRI.MOHAMMED ASLAM P.S

¶7

RESPONDENT:

¶8

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

¶9

PP -SMT. SREEJA V.

¶10

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

B.A.NO.3346 OF 2021

ORDER

This is an application filed under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. Petitioner is the first accused in Crime No.366/2021 of Perumpadappu Police Station in Malappuram district. The allegations against the petitioner and others are under Sections 324, 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶15

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, even

¶16

though he was granted an interim order on 07.05.2021, thereafter, he could not be in touch with the petitioner.

¶17

Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that he did not surrender before the Investigating Officer, that he had used a knife against the defacto complainant and therefore, in the nature of the allegations, the recovery of the weapon is inevitable.

¶18

After hearing counsel on both sides, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Specific overt act is alleged against the petitioner, who had allegedly used a knife against the defacto complainant and caused him injuries and thereby Section 307

¶19

I.P.C besides Section 324 has been invoked. In the nature of the

¶20

B.A.NO.3346 OF 2021

¶21

¶22

allegations the weapon of offence has to be recovered and therefore,

¶23

this is not a fit case for granting anticipatory bail.

¶24

The application is dismissed.

Sd/-

K.HARIPAL JUDGE

Jms/01.07

//True Copy// P.A to Judge

Rafi A.H v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rafi A.H 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

Arya Chelatt Vs State of Kerala

Soonu P.V Vs State of Kerala

Mohammed Mirza Vs State of Kerala

Sunil. A.V Vs State of Kerala

Ramanan Vs State of Kerala

Anil Kumar @ Kumar Vs State of Kerala Represented by the Public Prosecutor High Court of Kerala