Allowed

Abdul Latheef v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC4 Mar 2022Bail Appl./135/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court allowed a bail application filed by the 7th accused in a crime alleging offenses related to affray and assault. The court granted anticipatory bail subject to executing a bond with sureties, cooperating with investigation, avoiding communication with the complainant, and not committing other crimes, finding custodial interrogation unnecessary.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed subject to conditions: execution of bond with sureties, cooperation with investigation, no contact with complainant, and no further crimes.

Abdul Latheef Vs the State of Kerala — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 4^TH DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 13TH PHALGUNA, 1943

¶5

BAIL APPL. NO. 135 OF 2022

¶6

Crime No.533/2021 of Kottakkal Police Station

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

ABDUL LATHEEF AGED 48 YEARS S/O.ABDURAHIMAN, KIZHAKKEPARAMBAN (H), MANOOR, OTHUKKUNGAL P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 676 528.

¶9

BY ADV SUNNY MATHEW

¶10

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS & STATE:

¶11

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

¶12

2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER KOTTAKKAL POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 676 503.

¶13

OTHER PRESENT:

¶14

SRI. T.R. RENJITH (SR.PP)

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

B.A. No.135/2022

-2-

O R D E R

The petitioner is the 7^th accused in Crime No.533/2021 of Kottakkal Police Station, Malappuram District alleging commission of offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 342, 323, 324, 365, 506 (ii), 326, 308 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶20

The de facto complainant is the son-in-law of the petitioner's brother. It is alleged that the petitioner along with the other accused in the case who are all close relatives of the petitioner brutally attacked the de facto complainant as a result of which he sustained several injuries including fracture of his nasal bone.

¶21

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that after the marriage of his neice with the de facto complainant, she was subjected to all kinds of harassment by the de facto complainant. It is submitted that the petitioner and others had gone to meet the de facto complainant and at that time he had insisted that he will talk only in the presence of his wife and accordingly he had come to the house of the petitioner. It is submitted that when the wife of the de facto complainant revealed all details of the harassment in front of everyone, the de facto complainant became agitated and attacked the petitioner causing fracture on his head and in respect of which a crime has been registered against the de facto complainant. It is submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the crime and

¶22

B.A. No.135/2022

¶23

-3-

¶24

that the de facto complainant was the actual aggressor.

¶25

The learned Public Prosecutor vehementally opposes the grant of bail. It is submitted that the case which is now stated to be filed by the petitioner against the de facto complainant is clearly a counter blast to the allegations in Crime No.533/2021. It is submitted that the de facto complainant suffered serious injuries allegedly owing to the attack by the petitioner and other relatives. It is submitted that the other accused in the case have already been arrested and the petitioner is not entitled to be released on anticipatory bail.

¶26

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the nature of the allegations raised against the petitioner, I am of the view that the petitioner can be granted anticipatory bail subject to conditions, as his custodial interrogation may not be necessary in the facts and circumstances of this case.

¶27

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 connection with Crime No.533/2021 of Kottakkal Police Station subject to the following conditions:-

¶28

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

¶29

B.A. No.135/2022

¶30

-4-

¶31

(ii) Petitioner shall cooperate with the investigation and shall report before the Investigating officer in Crime No.533/2021 of Kottakkal Police Station at 10 a.m on 09-03-2022 and 10-03-2022 and thereafter as and when called upon to do so;

¶32

(iii) 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.533/2021 of Kottakkal Police Station;

¶33

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

¶34

If any of the aforesaid conditions are violated, the Investigating officer in Crime No.533/2021 of Kottakkal Police Station may file an application before the jurisdictional Court for cancellation of bail.

¶35

Sd/- GOPINATH P. JUDGE

¶36

AMG

Abdul Latheef v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Latheef 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

Sibi Joy Vs State of Kerala

Satheesh Vs State of Kerala

Sabu T S Vs State of Kerala

Sarath K.S. Vs State of Kerala

Ajithkumar Vs State of Kerala

Akhin Sree@ Akhil Vs State of Kerala