Allowed

Mohammed Kausar, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC4 Dec 2021Bail Appl./6084/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala granted anticipatory bail to two accused persons in a rioting and grievous hurt case. The court held that detention during investigation was unnecessary as no arrest attempt had been made despite the incident occurring months prior.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted contingent upon execution of a bail bond of Rs. 50,000 by each petitioner along with two sureties, compliance with conditions to not influence witnesses, and appearance befor

Mohammed Kausar, 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 P.G. AJITHKUMAR

¶4

SATURDAY, THE 4^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021/13TH AGRAHAYANA, 1943

¶5

BAIL APPL.NO. 6084 OF 2021

¶6

CRIME NO.357 OF 2021 OF KUMBLA POLICE STATION, KASARAGODE

¶7

PETITIONERS:

¶8

1 MOHAMMED KAUSAR, AGED 29 YEARS, S/O. ABDULLA AILA, KUDUPULU, UPPALA, KASARAGODE, KERALA-671 322.

¶9

2 MOHAMMED RAFI K.M, AGED 27 YEARS, S/O. MOHAMMED, KUDUPULU HOUSE, PERINGADY, UPPALA P.O, KASARGODE, KERALA-671 322.

¶10

BY ADVS. SRI.C.IJLAL SMT.UMMUL FIDA SRI.R.UDAYA KUMAR

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.

¶13

2 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KUMBLA POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD, KERALA-671 321 SRI.T.R.RENJITH-PP

¶14

OTHER PRESENT:

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL HEARING ON 04.12.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

¶17

B.A.No.6084 of 2021

¶18

P.G. AJITHKUMAR, J.

¶19

----------------------------------------------------------B.A.No. 6084 of 2021

¶20

----------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 4^th day of December, 2021

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

This is an application for anticipatory bail filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

¶23

The petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime

¶24

No.357 of 2021 of Kumbla Police Station, Kasaragode for having allegedly committed the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324 and 326 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the offences were changed to Sections 341, 323, 324 and 326 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. and the petitioners alone are the accused now.

¶25

The allegations are that the petitioners in furtherance of their common intention, attacked and inflicted injuries to the de facto complainant. In the incident, the de facto complainant sustained fracture of ribs, besides other injuries.

¶26

¶27

B.A.No.6084 of 2021

¶28

The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that initially, when the case was investigated by Manjeswaram Police, the petitioners appeared before the investigating officer. At that time, their statements were recorded, but no arrest was made. Thereafter, the crime was transferred to Kumbla Police Station on the question of territorial jurisdiction. Only at that time, it was revealed that the de facto complainant-injured sustained grievous hurt, resulting in addition of an offence punishable under Section 326 of the I.P.C.

¶29

The learned Public Prosecutor would submit that considering the nature of the offences alleged, custodial interrogation is required to complete the investigation in a proper manner.

¶30

Having considered the matter in detail, especially the fact that the incident had occurred as early as on 14.06.2021 and there was no attempt yet to arrest the petitioners, I am of the view that detention of the petitioners during investigation may not be required. Therefore, I find

¶31

¶32

B.A.No.6084 of 2021

¶33

that the petitioners are entitled to a pre-arrest bail.

¶34

The petitioners are therefore directed to appear

¶35

before the Investigating Officer within two weeks and in the event of their being arrested, they shall be released on bail on execution of a bond for Rs.50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand

¶36

only) by them along with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer, and on the following conditions:

¶37

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

¶38

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

¶39

(iii) During the bail period, they shall not get involved in any offence.

¶40

In case of breach of the bail conditions, the prosecution

¶41

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

¶42

the jurisdictional court. With these observations, the Bail Application is disposed of.

¶43

Sd/-

¶44

P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE

¶45

dkr

Mohammed Kausar, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammed Kausar, 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

Liji Suresh Kumar Vs Anil Kumar

Antony Vs Shemeer

Abdul Salam Vs Bindu M.K

Sasidharan .C., Vs the Station House Officer

E.Padmanabhan, Vs the State of Kerala

Deepak Dinesh Vs State of Kerala