Partly allowed

Kabeer P.T, v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC6 Dec 2021Bail Appl./7654/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court granted anticipatory bail to the first accused despite lack of specific overt act allegations, imposing strict conditions. Conversely, the application for other accused was dismissed due to specific allegations and prima facie nature of the case.

What did the court decide?

Bail application allowed for first accused subject to conditions; Bail application dismissed for remaining accused.

Kabeer P.T, Vs the State of Kerala — Anticipatory Bail | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.

¶4

MONDAY, THE 6^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021 / 15TH AGRAHAYANA, 1943

¶5

BAIL APPL. NO. 7654 OF 2021

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMC 1258/2021 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT,THALASSERY

¶7

CRIME NO.355/2021 OF MAYYIL POLICE STATION

¶8

APPLICANT/ACCUSED NO.1:

¶9

KABEER P.T, AGED 48 YEARS 48 YEARS, S/O. ABDULLA, DARUL KABEER, CHERUPAZHASSI POST, KALADI, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV BIJU ANTONY ALOOR

¶11

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:

¶12

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

¶13

2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER, MAYYIL POLICE STATION, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶14

SMT. SEETHA . (SR.P.P.)

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.12.2021, ALONG WITH B.A.NO.7525/2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

¶17

BAIL APPL. NOs. 7654/2021 & 7525/2021

¶18

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶19

PRESENT

¶20

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P. MONDAY, THE 6^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021 / 15TH AGRAHAYANA,

¶21

1943

¶22

BAIL APPL. NO. 7525 OF 2021

¶23

APPLICANTS/ACCUSED Nos.2 to 4 :

¶24

1 XXXXX X

¶25

2 HILAL AGED 45 YEARS OCC-LABOURER, S/O. ABDULLA P.S, KOIPARAMBATHU HOUSE, VADAKKE MOTTA, THANGAL ROAD, KOLACHERI, CHELERI, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670604.

¶26

3 SULTHAN P.T AGED 34 YEARS OCC-COOLIE, PONANAMKAI, THAIKANDI, AKKARAMAMAL, CHIRAKKAL P.O, KANJIRATHARA, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶27

BY ADVS. BIJU ANTONY ALOOR K.P.PRASANTH SHAFIN AHAMMED T.S.KRISHNENDU

¶28

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶29

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

¶30

2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, MAYYIL POLICE STATION, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670601.

¶31

BAIL APPL. NOs. 7654/2021 & 7525/2021

¶32

¶33

OTHER PRESENT:

¶34

SRI C.N. PRABHAKARAN (SR.PP)

¶35

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.12.2021, ALONG WITH B.A.NO.7645/2021 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶36

BAIL APPL. NOs. 7654/2021 & 7525/2021 4

¶37

ORDER

¶38

Petitioner is the first accused in Crime No. 355/2021 of Mayyil Police Station alleging commission of offence punishable under Sections 461, 341, 324, 354 r/w 34 of the IPC and Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice Act and Section 92(b) of the Right of Persons with Disability Act 2016 .

¶39

The allegation against the petitioner is that he together with accused Nos.2 to 4 (brothers of the petitioner) attacked the de facto complainant (wife of the petitioner) and their daughter who is a disabled girl using a burning piece of firewood and thereby committed the offences alleged against them.

¶40

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier a complaint was registered against the petitioner at the instance of the de facto complainant alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 354B and

¶41

BAIL APPL. NOs. 7654/2021 & 7525/2021 5

¶42

376 and Section 511 of IPC. Sections 8 and 9 of the POCSO Act and Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice Act. It is submitted that the petitioner was in custody in that case from 12.7.2021 and obtained statutory bail after completion of 60 days. It is submitted that despite the fact that the aforesaid crime was registered even when the petitioner was in custody in connection with Crime No.339/2021, arrest of the petitioner was not recorded in Crime No.355/2021. It is also submitted that there is no specific allegation against the petitioner in the FIS in Crime No.355/2021. It is submitted that allegations are falsely and maliciously raised when the brothers of the petitioner came to the house for a settlement talk regarding the issues raised in Crime No.339/2021/

¶43

The learned Public Prosecutor on instructions submits that the petitioner had instigated his brothers to attack the de facto complainant and her daughter and that though there is no specific allegation that the petitioner himself had attacked the de facto complainant and her daughter, there

¶44

BAIL APPL. NOs. 7654/2021 & 7525/2021 6

¶45

are clear allegations of attack by the brothers of the petitioner and the petitioner is therefore responsible in equal measure. However, it is admitted that the arrest of the petitioner could have been recorded while he was in custody in Crime No.339/2021.

¶46

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the fact that no specific overt act has been alleged against the petitioner, in the F.I.S in Crime No.355/2021, I am of the view that petitioner can be granted anticipatory bail subject to strict conditions.

¶47

In the result, this bail application is allowed. It is directed that the petitioner shall be released on bail, in the event of arrest in crime No. 355/2021 of Mayyil police Station subject to the following conditions:-

¶48

(i) Petitioner shall execute bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the likesum to the

¶49

¶50

BAIL APPL. NOs. 7654/2021 & 7525/2021

¶51

satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court;

¶52

(ii) Petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer in Crime No.355/2021 of Mayyil Police Station on every Monday and Saturday at 11 A.M. until further orders:

¶53

(iii) The petitioner shall not attempt to contact the de facto complainant or interfere with the investigation or to influence or intimidate any witness in Crime No.355/2021 of Mayyil police station;

¶54

(iv) The petitioner shall not involve in any other crime while on bail.

¶55

(v)The petitioner shall not enter the jurisdictional limits of Mayyil Police Station, Kannur District until further orders except for the purpose of complying with condition No.2 above.

¶56

(vi) The petitioner shall surrender his passport before the jurisdictional court. If the petitioner is required to go abroad, in connection with his employment, he shall make an application to the jurisdictional court both in Crime Nos.339/2021 and Crime No. 355/2021 of Mayyil Police Station and he

¶57

BAIL APPL. NOs. 7654/2021 & 7525/2021

¶58

¶59

shall be permitted to go abroad only after obtaining permission from the jurisdictional court. Needless to say if the petitioner is permitted to go abroad, the passport of the petitioner can be released.

¶60

If any of the aforesaid conditions are violated, the investigating officer in Crime No.355/2021 of Mayyil police station may file an application before the jurisdictional Court, for cancellation of bail.

¶61

B.A.No.7525/2021

¶62

Petitioners are accused 2,3 and 4 in Crime No.355/2021 of Mayyil Police Station.

¶63

I have noticed herein before, while deciding B.A.

¶64

No.7654/2021, the circumstances which led to the registration of Crime No.355/2021 .

¶65

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and considering the fact that there are specific allegations against petitioners 2,3 and 4 regarding the

¶66

BAIL APPL. NOs. 7654/2021 & 7525/2021 9

¶67

incident which took place on 8.7.2021 and considering the fact that the medical report of the de facto complainant and her daughter show that the allegations are prima facie correct, I am of the view that the accused Nos.2,3, and 4 (petitioners in B.A. 7525/2021) are not entitled to anticipatory bail. The circumstances that compelled me to grant bail to the 1^st accused are not available here. Therefore, B.A. No.7525/2021 stands dismissed. I make it clear that it is open for the petitioners in B.A. No.7525/2021 to surrender and seek regular bail.

¶68

Sd/-

¶69

GOPINATH P. JUDGE

¶70

al/-

Kabeer P.T, v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kabeer P.T, v. the 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

Muhammed Nazeeb Vs State of Kerala

Ameer Ali Vs the State of Kerala

Xxx Vs the State of Kerala

James Joseph Vs State of Kerala

Xxxxx Vs State of Kerala

T K Subash Vs State of Kerala