Allowed

Muhammed Illyas, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC16 Dec 2021Bail Appl./8884/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed a bail application filed by Mohammed Ilyas under Section 438 CrPC for offenses under IPC 379 and Kerala Protection of River Banks Act 2001. The court held that custodial interrogation was not absolutely necessary and granted anticipatory bail subject to strict conditions regarding appearance, witness interference, and non-involvement in further offenses.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail allowed on strict conditions including surrender within two weeks, appearance on Wednesdays, and non-interference with witnesses.

Muhammed Illyas, 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

THURSDAY, THE 16^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021 / 25TH AGRAHAYANA, 1943

¶5

BAIL APPL. NO. 8884 OF 2021

¶6

CRIME NO.867 OF 2021 OF BEKAL POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

MOHAMMED ILLYAS,

¶9

AGED 40 YEARS, S/O. ABDULLAH, NOORJA MANZIL, BAKEL, PUTHIYA KADAPPURAM P.O., PALLIKKARA VILLAGE, KASARGOD TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADVS. P.M.ZIRAJ IRFAN ZIRAJ

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

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

¶13

2 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, BAKEL POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD DISTRICT - 671 318.

¶14

SMT C.SEENA- PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16.12.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

¶17

B.A.No.8884 of 2021

¶18

P.G. AJITHKUMAR, J.

¶19

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

¶20

B.A.No. 8884 of 2021

¶21

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

¶22

Dated this the 16^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.867 of 2021 of Bakel Police Station, Kasaragod. The offences alleged are under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Section 20 of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001.

¶26

The allegations are that at about 11.10 p.m. on 30.10.2021, the Sub Inspector of Police, Bekal Police Station along with other police personnel while on patrol duty, saw an autorickshaw bearing Reg.No.KL-14-K-7735 loaded with eight sacks of sand coming from Puthiya Kadappuram to Bakel Junction. When they intercepted, the petitioner, who was on the wheels, ran away abandoning the vehicle. The autorickshaw and the loaded sand were seized and on finding

¶27

¶28

B.A.No.8884 of 2021

¶29

that the same was river sand and transported without any authority, the crime was registered.

¶30

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶31

The learned Public Prosecutor has placed on record the report of the Sub Inspector of Police, Bekal Police Station.

¶32

The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the sand was not river sand, but it was beach sand and on a mistaken impression, the crime was registered. It is further contended that though he is the owner of the vehicle, he was not the driver and he claims to be innocent.

¶33

The learned Public Prosecutor would contend that

¶34

the petitioner himself was the driver of the autorickshaw and his custodial interrogation is highly necessary for taking the investigation into its logical ends.

¶35

The vehicle and the sand were seized from the place of occurrence itself. When the allegation is that the petitioner, who is the owner, was the driver at the time of occurrence, there need not have much investigation regarding

¶36

¶37

B.A.No.8884 of 2021

¶38

the identity of the accused. Upon perusing the materials on record and hearing both sides, I am of the view that custodial interrogation of the petitioner may not be absolutely necessary. Considering that fact and also the nature of the offences involved, I hold that the petitioner can be granted anticipatory bail on strict conditions.

¶39

Hence 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

¶40

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:

¶41

(i) Once released on bail, he shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Wednesdays between 10.00 a.m. and 11 a.m. for a period of two months or till the final report is filed, whichever is earlier;

¶42

(ii) He shall not influence or intimidate witnesses or tamper

B.A.No.8884 of 2021

with evidence; and

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

¶47

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

¶48

jurisdictional court.

¶49

Sd/-

¶50

P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE

¶51

dkr

Muhammed Illyas, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muhammed Illyas, 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

Abimon Vs State of Kerala

Mohanan @ Ganapathi Assari Vs State of Kerala

Xxx Vs the State of Kerala

Prameela, Vs State of Kerala

Legeesh S.L. Vs State of Kerala

Nirmalan Vs State of Kerala