Allowed

Moideenkutty A.P. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC7 Dec 2021Bail Appl./8493/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed an anticipatory bail application. The court held that since the seized lorry and sand could establish the accused's identity, detention during investigation was unnecessary. Bail was granted subject to surrender within two weeks and execution of a bond.

What did the court decide?

The bail application was allowed. The petitioner must surrender before the investigating officer within two weeks and execute a bond for Rs.50,000 with two solvent sureties each.

Moideenkutty A.P. Vs State of Kerala — Cheque Dishonour | 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. 8493 OF 2021

¶6

CRIME NO.1216 OF 2021 OF TIRUR POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM PETITIONER:

¶7

MOIDEENKUTTY A.P.

¶8

AGED 26 YEARS, S/O.ALIKUTTY A.P., ARANGATH PARAMBIL HOUSE, KAIMALASSERI, TRIPRANGODE P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676108.

¶9

BY ADV BINOY VASUDEVAN

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

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

¶12

2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER TIRUR POLICE STATION, TIRUR P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, 676101.

¶13

SMT SEENA C- PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶14

OTHER PRESENT:

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION

¶16

ON 07.12.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

¶18

B.A.No.8493 of 2021

¶19

P.G. AJITHKUMAR, J.

¶20

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

¶21

B.A.No. 8493 of 2021

¶22

----------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 7^th day of December, 2021

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

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

¶25

The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.1216 of 2021 of Tirur Police Station for having allegedly committed the offences punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Sections 20 and 23 of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removing of Sand Act, 2001.

¶26

The prosecution allegation is that at about 8.30 a.m. on 24.10.2021 the accused was found transporting river sand in a lorry bearing registration No.KL-9-S-5578 and the vehicle was intercepted by the police at Payyanangadi. It is alleged that on seeing the police party, the accused, who was the driver of the lorry, took on his heels and escaped.

¶27

¶28

B.A.No.8493 of 2021

¶29

The petitioner would contend that he did not involve in the alleged crime and without any material or evidence, he was implicated in the crime.

¶30

The Sub inspector of Police, Tirur Police Station has submitted a report, through the learned Public Prosecutor, objecting the grant of bail to the petitioner. It is pointed out that the petitioner was involved in another crime for commission of a similar offence, which was registered in the year 2017 as Crime No.163 of 2017 of the same police station.

¶31

After having heard the learned counsel on both sides and considering the nature of the offence, I am of the view that the detention of the petitioner during the period of investigation is not necessary in this case. The lorry along with the transported sand were already seized. The question is regarding the identity of the accused. For that purpose alone, detention of the petitioner is not required; since the evidence regarding identity can be established by collecting evidence, even otherwise.

¶32

¶33

B.A.No.8493 of 2021

¶34

In the result, the bail application is allowed and the applicant 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 each, to the satisfaction of the investigating officer, and on the following conditions:

¶35

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

¶36

(ii) He shall appear before the investigating officer as and when called for; and

¶37

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

¶38

In case of breach of the bail conditions, the prosecution shall

¶39

be at liberty to apply for cancellation of the bail before the jurisdictional court.

¶40

Sd/-

¶41

P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE

¶42

dkr

Moideenkutty A.P. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Moideenkutty A.P. 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

Mohammed Sohib Vs State of Kerala

Sajma Raghu Vs State of Kerala