Dismissed

Abdulla v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC5 Feb 2024Crl.MC/17/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Cash of Rs.4,57,300/- allegedly part of murder-for-hire proceeds was seized from the petitioner. The Magistrate ordered its release subject to a bond and a renewable bank guarantee from a nationalised bank. The petitioner challenged the bank guarantee condition as excessive; the High Court found it reasonable given the ongoing investigation and dismissed the petition.

What the court decided

AI extract

Abdulla Vs State of Kerala — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

¶4

MONDAY, THE 5^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 16TH MAGHA, 1945

¶5

CRL.MC NO. 17 OF 2024

¶6

CRIME NO.493/2022 OF Manjeswar Police Station, Kasargod CRMP 1091/2022 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II,

¶7

KASARAGOD

¶8

PETITIONER/ PETITIONER IN CMP NO.1091/2022 :

¶9

ABDULLA,

¶10

AGED 73 YEARS, S/O ABOOBACKER, DOOR NO.1,ROSE GARDEN APARTMENT, UPPALA, MANJESWAR, KASARAGOD, PIN – 671 121

¶11

BY ADV K.V.SABU

¶12

RESPONDENT/ RESPONDENT IN CMP NO.1091/2022 :

¶13

STATE OF KERALA,

¶14

REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN – 682 031

¶15

SRI. NOUSHAD K.A., PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

CRL.MC NO. 17 OF 2024

¶18

¶19

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.

¶20

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

¶21

Crl.M.C.No.17 of 2024

¶22

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

¶23

Dated this the 5^th day of February, 2024

¶24

ORDER

¶25

Petitioner challenges Annexure-A1 order dated 20.09.2023 in C.M.P.No.1091 of 2022 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-II, Kasargod in Crime No.493 of 2022 of Manjeswar Police Station, Kasargod.

¶26

Petitioner's son is alleged to be involved in a murder case. The murder was allegedly committed by the petitioner's son and others for a consideration based on a quotation. The police during investigation seized an amount of Rs.4,57,300/- from the petitioner alleging the same to be part of the proceeds of the crime. Thereafter an application was filed by the petitioner under Section 451 of Cr.P.C. for release of the said amount stating that the amount was given to him by his brother for purchasing a small residential house for the petitioner. The learned Magistrate by the impugned order allowed the application, on conditions, which included execution of a bond for Rs.4,57,000/-, apart from production of a bank guarantee from a Nationalised Bank which is to be renewed until otherwise directed.

¶27

¶28

CRL.MC NO. 17 OF 2024

¶29

Sri.K.V.Sabu, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that even the Income Tax Department had not raised any demand for the amount and therefore it is evident that the currency seized from the petitioner was unconnected with the crime alleged against the petitioner's son. According to the learned counsel, the amount was given to the petitioner by his brother for buying a property through the bank and therefore the direction to furnish a bank guarantee causes prejudice and is too onerous to be complied with.

¶30

Sri.Noushad K.A., the learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand opposed the contentions and submitted that the investigation so far conducted indicates that the murder was committed for a consideration which has been seized from the petitioner and therefore unless the amount is secured by sufficient security, the investigation will be affected.

¶31

On a consideration of the contentions advanced, it is noticed that the investigation is still ongoing as pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor. Petitioner's son has not yet been arrested as well. The learned Magistrate has only imposed a condition to secure the amount by directing production of a bank guarantee which has to be renewed every year until otherwise directed.

¶32

Having regard to the circumstances of the case, the seriousness of the crime and the nature of property that has been directed to be released, including the continuing the investigation, I am of the view that

¶33

¶34

CRL.MC NO. 17 OF 2024

¶35

the condition directing production of a bank guarantee is not onerous nor

¶36

is it liable to be interfered.

¶37

Accordingly, I find no merit in this Crl.M.C. and it is dismissed.

¶38

Sd/-

¶39

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, JUDGE

¶40

RKM

¶41

CRL.MC NO. 17 OF 2024

¶42

¶43

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 17/2024

¶44

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES :

¶45

Annexure A1 A COPY OF THE ORDER DT.20.9.2023 IN CMP NO.1091/2022 (IN CRIME NO.493/20322 OF MANJESWAR POLICE STATION) PASSED BY THE LEARNED JFCM COURT-II (ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF), KASARAGOD

Abdulla v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Abdulla v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Charandas Vs State of Kerala

Easa I Vs State of Kerala

Ameen O P Vs State of Kerala

Suneer Khan Vs State of Kerala

Ajayakumar .a Vs State of Kerala

Rajeev, Vs Unnikrishnan