Allowed

Sulfikar B. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC8 Mar 2022Bail Appl./349/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is an anticipatory bail application filed by the 5th accused under Sections 143, 147, 148, 294(b), 306(ii), 452, and 427 r/w Section 149 and others of the IPC regarding trespass, molestation, and causing damage. The High Court granted the bail with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted, release on Rs. 50,000 bond with two sureties, cooperation with investigation, and prohibitions on interfering with witnesses or committing new crimes.

Sulfikar B. Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 8^TH DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 17TH PHALGUNA, 1943

¶5

BAIL APPL. NO. 349 OF 2022

¶6

CRIME NO.1395/2021 OF VALIATHURA POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT

¶7

PETITIONER/5TH ACCUSED:

¶8

SULFIKAR B. AGED 41 YEARS S/O.BADARUDEEN, T.C.46/1010/23,MANIKYAVILAKAM, POONTHURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695 026.

¶9

BY ADVS. JOSEPH GEORGE JIBU P THOMAS

¶10

RESPONDENT/STATE:

¶11

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

¶12

OTHER PRESENT:

¶13

SMT. SEETHA .S. (SR.PP)

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

BA No. 349/2022

..2..

ORDER

This is an application for anticipatory bail.

¶19

The petitioner is the 5^th accused in Crime No. 1395 of 2021 of Valiyathura Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram District, which was registered alleging commission of offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 294(b), 306(ii), 452 & 427 r/w Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code .

¶20

The allegation against the petitioner is that on 24.07.2021 at about 12.30 am, the petitioner along with the other accused in the case formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and trespassed into the petty shop and residential house of the de facto complainant with deadly weapons with an intention to attack the de facto complainant. It is alleged that the accused had caused damages to various items including electronic goods of the de facto complainant.

¶21

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has been wrongly implicated in the crime. It is submitted that the petitioner had no occasion to trespass into the shop or house of the petitioner or destroy any property belonging to him. It is pointed out that the de facto complainant is yet to identify the

¶22

..3..

¶23

BA No. 349/2022

¶24

petitioner as one among the accused. It is further submitted that, at any rate, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary in the matter.

¶25

The learned Public Prosecutor submits that going by the name and address furnished by the de facto complainant, the petitioner is one among the accused in the case. It is submitted that though the de facto complainant is yet to identify the persons, the name and address furnished by the de facto complainant suggest that the petitioner is a person involved. It is further submitted that the interrogation of the petitioner is absolutely essential in the matter.

¶26

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the nature of the allegations against the petitioner, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶27

In the result, this application is allowed and it is directed that the petitioner shall be released on bail, in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No. 1395 of 2021 of Valiyathura Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram District, subject to the following conditions:

¶28

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

¶29

..4..

¶30

BA No. 349/2022

¶31

for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court.

¶32

(b)Petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation and appear before the investigating officer in Crime No. 1395 of 2021 of Valiyathura Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram District, on 18.03.2022 at 10 am, and thereafter, whenever called upon to do so;

¶33

(c) Petitioner shall not attempt to interfere with the investigation or to influence or intimidate the de facto complainant o r any witness in Crime No. 1395 of 2021 of Valiyathura Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram District;

¶34

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

¶35

If any of the aforesaid conditions is violated, the investigating officer in Crime No. 1395 of 2021 of Valiyathura Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram District, may file an application before the jurisdictional court, for cancellation of bail.

Sd/-

GOPINATH P.

JUDGE

bka/09.03.2022

Sulfikar B. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sulfikar B. 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

Rajesh Vs State of Kerala

Nivil Vs State of Kerala

Krishnakumar, Vs State of Kerala

Saji Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Vinodhini Vs State of Kerala

Prakash Vs State of Kerala