Partly allowed

Shamsudheen Paneri v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC17 Feb 2021Bail Appl./531/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court granted partial bail in a case involving unlawful assembly and assault. Accused 3 and 4, implicated in grievous injury, were denied pre-arrest bail and ordered to surrender. Remaining accused were released on bail with security and conditions.

What did the court decide?

Denied pre-arrest bail to Accused 3 and 4; granted bail to remaining accused with security of Rs.50,000 each.

Shamsudheen Paneri 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

WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 28TH MAGHA,1942

¶5

Bail Appl..No.531 OF 2021

¶6

CRIME NO.806/2020 OF Mattannur Police Station , Kannur

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

1 SHAMSUDHEEN PANERI,AGED 42 YEARS SON OF MUHAMMED, RESIDING AT SHAFEENAS, ULIYIL P.O, MATTANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT. 670702

¶9

2 MUHAMMED K.K.,AGED 40 YEARS SON OF IBRAHIM, RESIDING AT KARAKANDY HOUSE, ULIYIL P.O, MATTANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶10

3 NOUFAL .K,AGED 38 YEARS SON OF ABOOBACKER, ARIPPAYIL HOUSE, ULIYIL P.O, MATTANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶11

4 FIROZ K.N,AGED 31 YEARS SON OF ABOOTTY, RESIDING AT PUTHIYAPURAYIL, PADAKKACHAL, ULIYIL P.O, MATTANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶12

5 ABDUL RAUF,AGED 43 YEARS SON OF MUHAMMED, RESIDING AT ALFA MAHAL, KARANCHERRI, ULIYIL P.O, MATTANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶13

6 MUHAMMED KABEER,AGED 26 YEARS SON OF KADER KUTTY, CHOLAYIL HOUSE, NARAYAMPARA, ULIYIL P.O, MATTANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶14

BY ADV. SRI.E.A.HARIS

¶15

RESPONDENT/S:

¶16

STATE OF KERALA

¶17

REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA 682031

¶18

OTHER PRESENT:

¶19

R1 BY SRI.SANTHOSH PETER SR PP

¶20

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

B.A.No.531 of 2021 2

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

Dated this the 17th day of February 2021

¶24

Applicants are accused Nos.1 and 3 to 7 in Crime No.806 of 2020 of Mattannur Police Station, Kannur District for having allegedly committed the offences punishable under Sections 143,147,148,341,323,324 and 308 of the Indian penal Code (IPC). Subsequently, the offence under Section 326 was also incorporated.

¶25

2. The prosecution case in brief is that, on 14.12.2020 at about 6 p.m., the applicant being the sympathizers of S.D.P.I allegedly formed an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of the common object of the unlawful assembly, the de facto complainant and his friends were wrongfully restrained by the accused and thereafter assaulted with bricks and caused a grievous injury to the friend of the de facto complainant who lost partial vision in one of his eyes and thus committed the aforesaid offences.

¶26

3. Heard the learned counsel for the applicants and the learned public prosecutor.

¶27

B.A.No.531 of 2021 3

¶28

4. The counsel for the applicants submits that the allegations are not true and the applicants have been implicated in this case only due to political reasons. It is further submitted that the applicants are innocent in this case and they have no criminal antecedents.

¶29

5. The learned public prosecutor points out that the main perpetrators of the crime were accused Nos.3 and 4 who inflicted grievous injury to the de facto complainant and his friends. It is submitted that the 3rd accused has criminal antecedents. Hence, the public prosecutor vehemently opposed this bail application.

¶30

6. After hearing both sides, I find that the specific overt act was alleged against accused Nos.3 and 4 who inflicted grievous injury on the de facto complainant and his friends by using a brick. In such circumstances, they are not entitled to an exceptional and extraordinary remedy of pre-arrest bail in this case. The rest of the applicants are entitled to pre-arrest bail.

¶31

B.A.No.531 of 2021 4

¶32

Hence, this bail application is allowed in part.

¶33

The applicants are directed to surrender before the investigating officer within two weeks from today. In the event of their arrest, after interrogation and recovery if any, A3 and A4 shall be produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate where they are at liberty to move for regular bail and the same shall

¶34

be disposed of preferably on the same day. The rest of the accused shall be released on bail on executing a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) each with two solvent sureties for the

¶35

like sum each to the satisfaction of the investigating officer and on the following conditions:

¶36

(i) They shall appear before the

¶37

Investigating Officer as and when

¶38

called for.

¶39

(ii) They shall not tamper with evidence, intimidate or influence

¶40

witnesses.

¶41

(iii) They shall not get involved in

¶42

B.A.No.531 of 2021 5

¶43

similar offences during the bail period.

¶44

In case of the breach of the bail conditions,

¶45

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

court.

Sd/-

ASHOK MENON

pkk

JUDGE

Shamsudheen Paneri v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shamsudheen Paneri 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

Asrudheen K Vs State of Kerala

Vishnu Salman Vs State of Kerala

Anokh Vs State of Kerala

Joseph Francis Alapatt Vs State of Kerala

Rajeevan.v Vs State of Kerala

Vishnu Vs State of Kerala