Allowed

Mohammed Sohib v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC7 Dec 2021Bail Appl./7702/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner (first accused) in a case involving conspiracy to cause death and abduction. The court imposed stringent conditions including mandatory appearance before the investigating officer and prohibition from interfering with witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted on surrender within two weeks, execution of a bond for Rs. 50,000 with two sureties, and compliance with conditions to appear before the investigating officer and not interfe

Mohammed Sohib 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 P.G. AJITHKUMAR

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 7^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021 /16TH AGRAHAYANA, 1943

¶5

BAIL APPL. NO. 7702 OF 2021

¶6

CRIME NO.91 OF 2019 OF KARUVARAKUNDU POLICE STATION,

MALAPPURAM

PETITIONER:

MOHAMMED SOHIB

AGED 25 YEARS, S/O ABDUL RAHIMAN P.A., ZAM ZAM HOUSE, PAIVALIKE NAGAR, PAIVALIKE POST, KASARGOD, PIN – 671348.

¶11

BY ADVS.

¶12

T.K.AJITH KUMAR AISWARYA RAMESAN

¶13

RESPONDENT:

¶14

STATE OF KERALA

¶15

REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM, PIN – 682031.

¶16

BY SMT SEENA C- PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶17

OTHER PRESENT:

¶18

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.12.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

¶20

B.A.No.7702 of 2021

¶21

P.G. AJITHKUMAR, J.

¶22

-----------------------------------------------------------

¶23

B.A.No. 7702 of 2021

¶24

-----------------------------------------------------------

¶25

Dated this the 7^th day of December, 2021

¶26

O R D E R

¶27

This is an application for anticipatory bail filed under

¶28

Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

¶29

The petitioner is the 1^st accused in Crime No.91 of 2019 of Karuvarakundu Police Station for having allegedly committed the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 307, 342, 363 and 120B read with Section 149 of the I.P.C.

¶30

The crime was registered on the allegation that while the victims were sitting in a car bearing Reg.No.KL-46M-7200 in a public road at Thuvvoor at around 22.30 on 29.05.2019, three persons came in a jeep and with an intention to cause death of the persons inside the car, hit against the car. The de facto complainant was thrown out and sustained injuries in the incident. All the three persons, who were with the de facto complainant in the car, were abducted

¶31

by the accused in the jeep and another vehicle. It is further

¶32

¶33

B.A.No.7702 of 2021

¶34

alleged that Sri.Nijas and Sri.Jamsheer were taken by accused 14 to 16 and brought to Paivelika, a place at Kasaragod, and detained there for eight days with the intention of extracting money from them.

¶35

The petitioner would contend that he was not a member of the gang, who committed the offence and even going by the allegations contained in the prosecution records, the offence that can be attributed to him is only confinement, for which arrest and detention of the petitioner is absolutely unnecessary. It is further contended that considering the nature of the allegations, it is not able to say that the petitioner also was a privy to the alleged criminal conspiracy.

¶36

The learned Public Prosecutor has placed on record a copy of the statement of facts submitted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Perinthalmanna, who was in charge of investigation. The learned Public Prosecutor would contend that the complicity of the petitioner is very much evident from the materials so far collected and his release at this juncture will adversely affect the investigation.

¶37

¶38

B.A.No.7702 of 2021

¶39

The petitioner was added as an accused after a few months of the date of occurrence. Going through the materials on record, it is seen that the investigation is already in its final stage.

¶40

Having considered the report of the Deputy Superintendent of Police and on hearing both sides, I am of the view that this is a case where the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail can be granted, but however, only on imposing stringent conditions. Identification of the petitioner is not a question. However for completion of the investigation and to collect materials for establishing the alleged offence, interrogation of the petitioner and such other formalities are required.

¶41

In such circumstances, this bail application is allowed and the petitioner is directed to surrender before the investigating officer within two weeks. After interrogation and in the event of his being arrested, he shall be released on bail on the execution of a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only), with two solvent sureties for the like amount

¶42

¶43

B.A.No.7702 of 2021

¶44

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

¶45

(i) He shall not influence or intimidate witnesses or tamper with evidence;

¶46

(ii) He shall appear before the investigating officer on every Monday and Friday between 10.00 a.m. and 12.00 noon for a period of two months or till the final report is filed, whichever is earlier; and

¶47

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

¶48

In case of breach of the bail conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to apply for cancellation of the bail before the jurisdictional court.

¶49

Sd/-

¶50

P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE

¶51

dkr

Mohammed Sohib v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammed Sohib 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

Abdul Saleem Vs State of Kerala

Afzal, Vs State of Kerala

Sudhir K. Vs State of Kerala

Jayarajan Theniyadan, Vs State of Kerala

Moideenkutty A.P. Vs State of Kerala

Sajma Raghu Vs State of Kerala