Kerala High Court
Bail Appl./9098/2016 of IQBAL@KUNHUMON Vs STATE OF KERALA on 30 December 2016
COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.BABU FRIDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2016/9TH POUSHA, 1938 Bail Appl..No. 9098 of 2016 (B) ------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN CMP 7800/2016 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KAYAMKULAM DATED
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.BABU
FRIDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2016/9TH POUSHA, 1938
Bail Appl..No. 9098 of 2016 (B)
-------------------------------
AGAINST THE ORDER IN CMP 7800/2016 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATECOURT, KAYAMKULAM DATED 24-11-2016CRIME NO. 2944/2016 OF KAYAMKULAM POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA
PETITIONER:-----------
IQBAL@KUNHUMON, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.IBRAHIM KUTTY, PANTHPLAVIL HOUSE, DESHATHINAKAM MURI, KRISHNAPURAM, KAYAMKULAM.
BY ADVS.SRI.R.SUNIL KUMAR SMT.A.SALINI LAL
RESPONDENT:-----------
STATE OF KERALA REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, THROUGH S.I OF POLICE, KAYAMKULAM
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.S.HRITHWIK
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30-12-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
JJJ
A.M. BABU, J.
------------------------------------------ B.A No. 9098 of 2016 (B)
------------------------------------------Dated: 30[th] December, 2016
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.
O R D E R
Petitioner is the 4[th] accused in crime no.2944/2016of the Kayamkulam police station. There are altogether21 accused persons. They are alleged to havecommitted offences punishable under sections 212, 225,307, 323, 325, 333, 341, 353 and 506 of the IPC r/w IPC34. Petitioner seeks bail under section 439 of theCr.P.C.
2. The prosecution case is that the police teamled by the Assistant Sub-Inspector attached to theKayamkulam police station was obstructed andmanhandled by the accused persons when the policeteam attempted to arrest the third accused in someother case. It is alleged that the incident was at 4.30p.m on 23.10.2016.
-2-
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitionerand the learned Public Prosecutor.
4. The learned Public Prosecutor has opposed theapplication. I am shown the written instructionreceived by the learned Public Prosecutor from theinvestigating officer. I perused it. The petitioner wasarrested on 01.11.2016. Major portion of theinvestigation is over. Weapons have been recovered.The petitioner has been interrogated. It appears thataccused 5 to 7 are not yet arrested. The petitioner is incustody since 01.11.2016. He cannot be asked toremain in custody till all the accused persons arearrested. I do not consider that the continued custodyof the petitioner is necessary for completion of theremaining part of the investigation. I am thereforeinclined to grant bail.
In the result the application is allowed. The petitioner shall be released on bail on his executing abond for Rs.30,000/- (thirty thousand only) with twosolvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfactionof the learned Magistrate who has jurisdiction tocommit the case to the court of session. The petitionershall co-operate with the investigation. He shall makehimself available for interrogation as and whenrequired by the investigating officer. The petitionershall report to the investigating officer between 10 a.mand 11 a.m on every Tuesday for a period of threemonths or till the filing of the final report, whichever isearlier. The petitioner shall not intimidate or try toinfluence witnesses. Nor shall the petitioner destroyevidence or tamper with it. He shall not involve in anyother offence of a like or similar nature whilst on bail.He shall surrender his passport before the learned Magistrate within four days of his release from custody.If he does not possess a passport, he shall file anaffidavit to that effect within the above said period offour days. The learned Magistrate/Sessions Judge ishereby empowered to cancel the bail in the event ofviolation of any of the conditions mentioned above.
Sd/-A.M. BABU, JUDGE
jjj 30/12/16
//True Copy//P.A. to Judge