Dismissed

Muhammed Fisal @ Faisy v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC15 Feb 2022Crl.MC/257/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court High Court of Kerala allowed the Prosecution to cancel the bail of the petitioner in the second case alleging that it was similar in nature to the first case involving hurt and outrage of modesty, dismissing the contending arguments that the second case was not of similar nature as the first.

What did the court decide?

The Crl.M.C is dismissed. The Annexure-A4 order cancelling bail is upheld.

Muhammed Fisal @ Faisy Vs State of Kerala — Maintenance and Alimony | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARIPAL

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 15^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 / 26TH MAGHA, 1943

¶5

CRL.MC NO. 257 OF 2022

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CMP 1479/2021 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II,ATTINGAL

¶7

PETITIONER/COUNTER PETITIONER:

¶8

MUHAMMED FISAL @ FAISY AGED 24 YEARS S/O. NASIM , MUBEENA MANZIL, KOITHOORKONAM, ANDOORKONAM VILLAGE, TRIVANDRUM 695 584

¶9

BY ADVS. M.R.SARIN M.R.SASITH P.SANTHOSHKUMAR (KARUMKULAM) ROSHINI UDAYAKUMAR LEKSHMI S.R

¶10

RESPONDENT/PETITIONERS:

¶11

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI 682 031

¶12

2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER MANGALAPURAM POLICE STATION, POTHENCODE MURUKKUMPUZHA ROAD, NH 66, MANGALAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 501

¶13

SR.PP - SRI. HRITHWIK C.S.

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15.02.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

Crl.M.C.No. 257 of 2022

¶16

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

Petitioner is the 4^th accused in Crime No.415/2021 of

¶19

Mangalapuram police station, which was registered alleging offence under Sections 120B, 465,392,395,412 and 163 read with r/w 34 IPC. By Annexure-A1 order he was granted bail by this court imposing conditions among other things that 'he shall not get involved in similar cases during the currency of the bail.' It was also made clear that in case of violation of bail conditions, the prosecution is at liberty to move for cancellation of bail before the jurisdictional court. Thereafter alleging that he had involved in Crime No.2479/2021 of Pothencode police station, registered on 23.12.2021 alleging offence under Sections 294(b), 323, 341, 354 r/w 34 of IPC, the Jurisdictional Court was approached for cancellation of the bail. By Annexure-A4 order, the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Attingal cancelled the bail and aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has approached this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C for quashing Annexure-A4 order.

¶20

I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

¶21

The crux of the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in Annexure-A1 order the offences alleged are under Sections 120B, 465,392,395,412 and 163 r/w 34 of IPC whereas offences in Annexure-2 FIR are not of similar nature and therefore, the Court should not have cancelled the bail taking shelter under condition

¶22

Crl.M.C.No. 257 of 2022

¶23

¶24

No. 1 of Annexure-A1 order. Learned Senior Public Prosecutor has strongly opposed the application. According to him, both hurt cases. In the second case not only hurt but a criminal force has used against the minor girl outraging her modesty and that was how offence under Section 354 of IPC was also invoked in the case.

¶25

After considering rival contentions I am not convinced that second crime is not a case of similar one as that of the first crime. In fact the object and intention of incorporating such a condition was to bridle the criminal tendency in a person. The first crime is intrinsically a hurt case. In the second crime also, no doubt, hurt has been caused to the a father and attempts have been made to outrage the modesty of the daughter. It is evident from the first information statement that the petitioner and others were unleashing attack against the members of a family while they were together travelling in a car. That means, imposition of such a condition in Annexure-A1 order did not have any impact in his conduct. A narrow and technical interpretation cannot be adopted by the Court. I do not find any valid reason to interfere with the Annexure-A4 order and the Crl.M.C is liable to be dismissed.

¶26

In the result, the Crl.M.C is dismissed.

¶27

Sd/-K.HARIPAL JUDGE

¶28

lsn

¶29

Crl.M.C.No. 257 of 2022

¶30

¶31

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 257/2022

¶32

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

¶33

Annexure A1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN BA NO. 3837/2021 OF THIS HON'LE HIGH COURT Annexure A2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 2479/2021 OF POTHENCODE POLICE STATION Annexure A3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT FILED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE MANGALAPURAM POLICE STATION IN CRIME NO. 415/2021 ON THE FILE OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT II, ATTINGAL Annexure A4 THE TRUE COPY OF C.M.P NO. 1479/2021 IN CRIME NO. 415/2021 MANGALAPURAM POLICE STATION ON THE FILE OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRARE COURT II, ATTINGAL

¶34

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL

¶35

TRUE COPY

¶36

P.A TO JUDGE

¶37

LSN

Muhammed Fisal @ Faisy v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muhammed Fisal @ Faisy 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

Aby Baby Varghese Vs the State of Kerala

Moyin@Vappu Vs the State of Kerala

Anas V.K Vs State of Kerala

Hareesh Mahadevan, Vs Beatrice Periera @ Rajani

Niyas K.N Vs State of Kerala

Muhammed Rifan N.N Vs State of Kerala