Allowed

Muhammed Rinshad.a.K ., v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC14 Jul 2023Bail Appl./2906/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Kerala granted anticipatory bail to the first accused under Section 438 CrPC for offences of murder, rash and negligent act, punishment preceding death and criminal intimidation, noting significant delay in FIR registration and a property dispute context.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted; applicant to surrender within two weeks for interrogation and then released on bail upon executing a bond with sureties under specified conditions.

Muhammed Rinshad.a.K ., Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 14^TH DAY OF JULY 2023 / 23RD ASHADHA, 1945

¶5

BAIL APPL. NO. 2906 OF 2023

¶6

CRIME NO.302/2023 OF TENHIPALAM POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1:

¶8

MUHAMMED RINSHAD.A.K ., AGED 23 YEARS

¶9

S/O LATE BICHIKOYA, RAHATH MANZIL, VALIYAPARAMBU, P.O, CHUNGAM, FAROOK, KOZHIKODE DIST, PIN - 673637

¶10

BY ADV P.K.MOHAMED JAMEEL

¶11

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:

¶12

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031

¶13

2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER, TENHIPALAM POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 673635

¶14

OTHER PRESENT:

¶15

ADV. C S HRITHWIK - SR PP

¶16

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.07.2023, THE

¶17

COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

BAIL APPL. NO.2906 OF 2023

¶19

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

This is an application filed u/s 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking pre-arrest bail.

¶22

The petitioner is the first accused in Crime No.302/2023 of Thenhipalam Police Station, Malappuram district, which was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 452, 436, 324, 506 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶23

The prosecution case is that, on 13.03.2023 at about 22.00 hours, the first accused along with an unknown person trespassed into the partnership firm named 'Induro', wherein the defacto complainant is a partner, carrying petrol with an intention to destroy the furniture, poured petrol over it and set fire. It is also alleged that the accused also threatened the employees of the firm with death by pouring petrol over them. The crime in respect of the same was registered, on 03.04.2023. As the petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with the investigation of the said case, this application for anticipatory bail is submitted.

¶24

Heard Sri.Mohamed Jameel P.K., learned counsel for the

¶25

BAIL APPL. NO.2906 OF 2023

¶26

¶27

petitioner and Sri. C.S. Hrithwik, learned Senior Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.

¶28

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent of all the allegations. According to him, there are some serious disputes between the petitioner and the defacto complainant in respect of the property wherein the establishment of the defacto complainant is situated. According to the petitioner, the property originally belonged to the petitioner, the possession of which was handed over to the defacto complainant on the basis of forged documents by one of the relatives of the petitioner. It is also pointed out that, in connection with the same, the petitioner submitted a complaint and on the basis of the same, crime No.122/2023 was registered by Thenhipalam police for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 417, 465, 467, 468, r/w. 34 of IPC against the defacto complainant and other partners. According to him, a false complaint was submitted, as a retaliation of the same.

¶29

On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor opposes the said application by pointing out that there are specific allegations against the petitioner.

¶30

The relevant records relating to the prosecution case were also made available for perusal. I have carefully gone through the records. It is seen that the even though the incident allegedly

¶31

BAIL APPL. NO.2906 OF 2023

¶32

¶33

occurred on 13.03.2023 the FIR registered only on 03.04.2023 and thus, there is substantial delay in reporting the matter. In the facts and circumstances of the case, peculiarly taking note of the nature of the allegations, the aforesaid delay is very crucial. The fact that a case has been registered against the petitioner touching upon the right of the defacto complainant over the registration of property is also a crucial aspect to be noticed in this regard. The present complaint was submitted after registration of the said crime on the basis of a complaint submitted by the petitioner herein. When all the aforesaid aspects are taken into consideration, I find some force in the contention put forwarded by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Anyhow, since it is a matter of investigation, I do not intend to adjudicate upon the said issue. But considering the aforesaid aspects, I deem it appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, this bail application is disposed of with the following conditions:

¶34

(i) The petitioner shall surrender before the Investigating officer, within a period of two weeks from today, for subjecting himself to interrogation.

¶35

(ii) After interrogation, the petitioner shall be released on bail on the very same day of surrender upon the petitioner executing a bond

¶36

BAIL APPL. NO.2906 OF 2023

¶37

¶38

for Rs 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum, to the satisfaction of the investigating officer.

¶39

(iii) The petitioner shall fully cooperate with the investigation, including subjecting himself to the deemed police custody for the purpose of recovery, if any, as and when demanded.

¶40

(iv) The petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer between 10.00 a.m and 11.00 a.m every Monday until the filing of the final report.

¶41

(v) The petitioner shall also appear before the investigating officer as and when required.

¶42

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

¶43

(vii) 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

(viii) The petitioner shall not leave India without the permission of the trial Court.

¶45

BAIL APPL. NO.2906 OF 2023

¶46

¶47

In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the

¶48

jurisdictional Court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation of bail, if any, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law.

¶49

Sd/-

¶50

ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.

¶51

JUDGE

¶52

shg

¶53

BAIL APPL. NO.2906 OF 2023

¶54

¶55

APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 2906/2023

¶56

PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure	THE TRUE COPY OF THE F.I.R NO. 302/2023 OF TENHIPALAM POLICE STATION
Annexure A2	THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR NO. 122/2023 OF TENHIPALAM POLICE STATION
Annexure A3	THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 06.03.2023
Annexure A4	THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 06.03.2023 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
Annexure A5	THE TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY TENHIPALAM PANCHAYATH

Muhammed Rinshad.a.K ., v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muhammed Rinshad.a.K ., 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

G.R. Neethu Vs State of Kerala

Babu Varghese Vs State of Kerala

Nobel Lopez. B @ Nobel Nobert Vs State of Kerala

Xxx Vs State of Kerala

Pramod Prathapan Vs State of Kerala

Pratheesh, Vs State of Kerala