Kerala High Court
Bail Appl./9783/2012 of MUSTAFA KAMAL Vs STATE OF KERALA on 31 December 2012
COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN MONDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2012/10TH POUSHA 1934 Bail Appl..No. 9783 of 2012 () ------------------------------ (CRIME NO.1360/2012 OF THE MANJERI POLICE STATION, MALAPPUAM DISTRICT) ---------------------------
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN
MONDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2012/10TH POUSHA 1934
Bail Appl..No. 9783 of 2012 ()
------------------------------
(CRIME NO.1360/2012 OF THE MANJERI POLICE STATION, MALAPPUAM DISTRICT)--------------------------- PETITIONER/ACCUSED NOS. 1, 2, 4 & 5:
-------------------------------------
1. MUSTAFA KAMAL, AGED 23 YEARS, S/O.ASHRAF, MECHERI HOUSE,THURAKKAL, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DIST
2. LUKMAN, AGED 27 YEARS,S/O.ALAVI, POTTAMMAL HOUSE, THURAKKAL MANJERI,MALAPPURAM DIST THURAKKAL MANJERI,MALAPPURAM DIST
3. MUHAMMED ANSAS BABU, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O.MOIDEEN, PULIYANCHALIL HOUSE, THURAKKAL MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DIST PULIYANCHALIL HOUSE, THURAKKAL MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DIST
4. SHIHABUDEEN, AGED 26 YEARS,S/O.ABOOBACKER, THACHARATHODI HOUSE,THURAKKAL MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DIST THACHARATHODI HOUSE,THURAKKAL MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DIST
BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR
RESPONDENT/STATE:
----------------
1. STATE OF KERALA REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-31
THROUGH THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE MANJERI POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DIST
ADDL.R2.IMPLEADED
------------------
ADDL.R2. NIYAS, AGED 27 YEARS, S/O.K.N.MOHAMMED ASRAF, RESIDING AT KUNNATHU NADUTHODI HOUSE, CHERANI, KARUVAMBRAM P.O., MANJERI, IS IMPLEADED AS ADDL.R2 AS PER ORDER DATED 31.12.12 IN CRL.M.A.8530/12 IN B.A.9783/12.
R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.LALIZA T.Y.ADDL.R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSIONON 31-12-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
vk
P.BHAVADASAN, J.
---------------------------------------------------- BA No.9783 of 2012
---------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 31[st] day of December 2012
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
Order
The petitioners are accused in Crime No.1360/12 of Manjeri Police Station for having committed the offencespunishable under Ss.143, 147, 148, 452, 341, 323, 324, 308,326, 506(ii), 427 r/w S.149 IPC. The incident which gave riseto the case is said to have occurred on 9.10.2012. Theallegation is that the petitioners trespassed into the hollowbricks shop run by the defacto complainant and caused injuriesto him using deadly weapons. The defacto complainant wastaken to the hospital. The further allegation is that thepetitioners followed the defacto complainant to the hospital andbeat him up while he was in the hospital also. The petitionershave been in custody from 26.11.2012 onwards. The learnedcounsel for the petitioners would submit that they have been incustody for a long period and their continued custody isunnecessary.
2. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed theapplication and pointed out that the first petitioner is involved insix other crimes. It is also pointed out that the second and thethird petitioners are also involved in two other crimes.
3. The defacto complainant was impleaded and he was represented by Adv. Sri.K.M.Sathyanatha Menon. He tooopposed the application and pointed out that due to the threatmeted out to the defacto complainant by the petitioners, he wasconstrained to approach this court for police protection and hewas able to obtain a favourable order from this court.
4. On going through the materials available in the CD, it does not appear that the incident was a stray incident.The petitioners not only attacked the complainant in the shop,but also followed him to the hospital and attacked him while inthe hospital also. The defacto complainant had approachedthis court for police protection. Apart from the said fact,petitioners 1 to 3 have criminal antecedents also. Consideringthe totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is feltthat petitioners 1 to 3 cannot be released on bail now.
Accordingly, the application stands dismissed as far aspetitioners 1 to 3 are concerned. The position of the fourthpetitioner is different and it is felt that his continued custody isunnecessary. Accordingly, the application is allowed as far asthe fourth petitioner is concerned and the fourth petitioner shallbe released on bail subject to the following conditions :
1. The fourth petitioner shall execute a bond for Rs.25,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with two solventsureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the JFCMconcerned. (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with two solventsureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the JFCMconcerned.
2. The learned Magistrate concerned shall ensure the identity ofthe sureties and the veracity of the tax receipts produced bythe sureties, before granting bail to the fourth petitioner.the sureties and the veracity of the tax receipts produced bythe sureties, before granting bail to the fourth petitioner.
3. The fourth petitioner shall report before the InvestigatingOfficer on every Wednesday between 9 am and 11 am, untilfurther orders.Officer on every Wednesday between 9 am and 11 am, untilfurther orders.
4. The fourth petitioner shall not tamper or attempt to tamperwith the evidence and influence or try to influence thewitnesses.with the evidence and influence or try to influence thewitnesses.
5. If any of the conditions is violated, the bail granted shallstand cancelled and the learned Magistrate concerned onbeing satisfied of the said fact, may take such action asavailable to him in law.
P.Bhavadasan, Judge
sta