Kerala High Court
Bail Appl./9506/2012 of HAMZA 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. 9506 of 2012 () ------------------------------ CRIME NO.493/2012 OF BEDAKAM POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD 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. 9506 of 2012 ()
------------------------------
CRIME NO.493/2012 OF BEDAKAM POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD DISTRICT
------------------------------------
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
--------------------------------------
HAMZA,S/O. MOTTAYIL KHADER, AGED 36 YEARS, MOTTAYIL HOUSE, MANJANADUKKAM, KOLATHUR VILLAGE & P.O., KASARAGOD DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.I.V.PRAMOD
SRI.MANSOOR.B.H.
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT/STATE:
--------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 031.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.S.SREEJITH
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 31-12-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
sts
P.BHAVADASAN, J.
---------------------------------------------------- BA No.9506 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 petitioner is the accused in CrimeNo.493/12 of Bedakam Police Station for having committed the offences punishable under Ss.341, 324 and 308 ofIPC. The allegation is that on 8.12.2012 at about 9.30 pm,while the defacto complainant was returning home afterdropping his son in the airport, the petitioner blocked hiscar, pulled him out of the car and caused injuries to him.The petitioner would say that the allegations are totallyfalse and are cooked up for the purpose of the case.According to him, the defacto complainant is a moneylender and he had lent money to the petitioner. Thepetitioner submits that the entire money was repaid, but thedefacto complainant insisted for further amounts from him.This led to exchange of words between the petitioner andthe complainant. It is also pointed out that there is acounter case with regard to the very same incident. The BA No.9506/12
petitioner submits that he is totally innocent and has beenfalsely implicated.
2. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application and pointed out that the claim of the petitionerthat he is totally innocent, cannot be countenanced. It isalso pointed out that the investigation is at an infant stage.The case diary and the wound certificate were madeavailable for perusal.
3. On going through the materials available inthe CD, it does not appear that the petitioner is as innocentas he claims to be. The veracity of the allegation does notarise for consideration as of now. Suffice is to say that thenature of allegations against the petitioner, the manner inwhich the acts are alleged to have been committed by him,the injuries suffered by the victim and the fact that theinvestigation is at an infant stage, preclude this court fromexercising the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this court underS.438 Cr.PC in favour of the petitioner. The application isaccordingly dismissed. However, the petitioner will be at BA No.9506/12
liberty to surrender before the Investigating Officer on orbefore 09.01.13, who, after interrogation, shall produce himbefore the JFCM concerned. On an application being filedby the petitioner before the JFCM concerned for bail, thesame shall be considered and appropriate orders shall bepassed thereon by the JFCM concerned in accordance withlaw after hearing the APP, if possible, on the same day offiling the application.
P.Bhavadasan, Judge
sta