Allowed

Saddiq v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC11 Apr 2023Bail Appl./2619/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application filed under Section 439 CrPC for offences under IPC 326, 506(i), and 308, the High Court of Kerala allowed the application. The court noted the applicant was arrested over two weeks prior with no criminal antecedents and no recovery pending, finding incarceration unnecessary.

What did the court decide?

Regular bail granted with bond of Rs. 1,00,000 and two sureties, subject to conditions including cooperation with inquiry and no contact with witnesses.

Saddiq Vs State of Kerala — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF APRIL 2023 / 21ST CHAITHRA, 1945

¶5

BAIL APPL. NO. 2619 OF 2023

¶6

CRIME NO.179/2023 OF Nenmara Police Station, Palakkad
IN Crl.M.P 1151/2023 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

¶7

CLASS ,ALATHUR

¶8

APPLICANT/SOLE ACCUSED:

¶9

SADDIQ
AGED 51 YEARS
S/O.MUHAMMADALI, KALLAMPARAMBU VEEDU,
KAIRADY POST, AYILUR,
PALAKKAD, PIN - 678510

¶10

BY ADV V.A.JOHNSON (VARIKKAPPALLIL)

¶11

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶12

STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN – 682031
SHRI.M.P.PRASHANTH, PP

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
11.04.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

B.A.No.2619 of 2023

..2..

O R D E R

This is an application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.PC) seeking regular bail.

¶18

The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.179/2023 of Nenmara Police Station, Palakkad, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 326, 506(i) and 308 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶19

The prosecution case is that, on 19.03.2023, at about 17.00 hrs, the accused, due to previous animosity in connection with a family dispute, with an intention and knowledge that the act which he is committing may result in the death of the defacto complainant and her son, drove his autorickshaw in high speed and hit against the scooter in which the defacto complainant and her son were travelling. On account of the incident, the defacto complainant sustained fracture on her finger on her right hand and left foot. The son of the defacto complainant also sustained injuries. The crime was registered in such circumstances based on the information furnished by the

¶20

B.A.No.2619 of 2023

¶21

..3..

¶22

defacto complainant, and accordingly, the petitioner was

¶23

arrested as part of the investigation on 21.03.2023. Since then, he has been under judicial detention, and this application for regular bail is submitted in such circumstances.

¶24

Heard Sri.V.A. Johnson (Varikkappallil), the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. M.P. Prashanth the learned Public Prosecutor for the State.

¶25

The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is falsely implicated in this case. Under no circumstances the incident can be treated as the one that would attract the offences alleged against the petitioner. It is also contended that certain disputes are pending between the petitioner and the defacto complainant, who are neighbours, and the petitioner is being implicated in this case with false allegations due to such rivalry.

¶26

On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor stoutly opposed the prayer sought by the petitioner. It is pointed out that, in the statement given by the victim, they clearly indicated that there was a voluntary act on the part

¶27

..4..

¶28

B.A.No.2619 of 2023

¶29

of the petitioner to hit his autorickshaw against the scooter

¶30

ridden by the defacto complainant. The matter is now under investigation, and the release of the petitioner is opposed in such circumstances.

¶31

I have gone through the records and heard the contentions raised from both sides. There are indeed allegations against the petitioner with regard to the commission of the offences. However, the fact remains that the petitioner has been in custody since 21.03.2023, and more than two weeks have elapsed since then. There is substantial progress in the investigation, and no criminal antecedents of the petitioner were also brought to my notice. No further recovery is also to be affected in this case.

¶32

In such circumstances, I do not find any necessity to continue the incarceration of the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner can be granted regular bail, subject to appropriate conditions to ensure that he is not contacting or influencing or intimidating the witnesses.

¶33

Accordingly, this bail application is allowed directing

¶34

B.A.No.2619 of 2023

¶35

..5..

¶36

the release of the petitioner on bail subject to the following

¶37

conditions:-

¶38

i) The petitioner shall be released on bail on executing a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.

¶39

ii) The petitioner shall fully cooperate with the investigation.

¶40

iii) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer between 10.00 a.m and 11.00 a.m every Wednesday until the filing of the final report.

¶41

iv) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required.

¶42

v) The petitioner shall not commit any offence of similar nature while on bail.

¶43

vi) The petitioner shall not make any attempt to contact any of the prosecution witnesses, directly or through any other person, or in any other way try to tamper with the evidence or influence any witnesses or other persons related to the investigation.

¶44

vii) The petitioner shall not leave the State of Kerala without the permission of the jurisdictional court.

¶45

B.A.No.2619 of 2023

¶46

..6..

¶47

In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the jurisdictional Court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation of bail, if any, and pass appropriate orders in

¶48

accordance with the law.

¶49

Sd/-

¶50

ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A JUDGE

¶51

mtk

Saddiq v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saddiq 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

Ayyappan Vs Shanti

Vivin Vincent Vs M/S Auto Bhan Trucking Corporation Pvt. Ltd.

Mohamed Ashik, Vs the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner

Surendra Babu Vs State of Kerala

Noushad a Vs State of Kerala

Shameem K. P Vs State of Kerala