Kerala High Court
Bail Appl./8848/2016 of SHAKEEL T.R 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. 8848 of 2016 () ------------------------------- CRIME NO. 1193/2011 OF KASARAGOD POLICE STATION, KASARGOD PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 3 AND 5:
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. 8848 of 2016 ()
-------------------------------
CRIME NO. 1193/2011 OF KASARAGOD POLICE STATION, KASARGOD
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 3 AND 5:---------------------------
1. SHAKEEL T.R, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O IBRAHIM, HOUSE NO 1/1409, IZZATH NAGAR, P.O HIDAYATH NAGAR, KASARGOD DISTRICT.
2. P.B. AHAMMED, THANSHEER VILLA, ALAMPADI, KASARGOD 671 123.
BY ADV. SRI.K.K.MOHAMED RAVUF
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
-----------------------
STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 682 031. (REPRESENTING STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KASARGOD POLICE STATION, KASARGOD DISTRICT)
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. 8848 of 2016 (A)------------------------------------------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
Petitioners are accused 3 and 5 in crimeno.1193/2011 of the Kasargod police station. There arealtogether seven accused persons. They are alleged tohave committed offences punishable under sections143, 147, 148, 342, 365 and 392 of the IPC r/w IPC 149.The petitioners seek bail apprehending his arrest.
2. The prosecution case is that the accused persons formed themselves into an unlawful assemblyat about 7.00 p.m on 20.12.2011, committed riotingarming themselves with deadly weapons, abducted thede facto complainant and robbed a mobile phone fromhim.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitionersand the learned Public Prosecutor.
-2-
4. I am shown the case diary. Perused it. Theonly person named in the F.I statement is the firstaccused. The petitioners were implicated two yearsafter the alleged incident. The wound certificate doesnot suggest sustainment of any visible wound by the defacto complainant. What is alleged is that the accusedrobbed a mobile phone and Rs.1,000/-. Having gonethrough the papers in the case diary and having heardboth sides, I do not consider this to be a case wheredetention of the petitioners is necessary for an effectiveinvestigation of the case. I find that the request foranticipatory bail is only to be granted.
In the result, the application is allowed. The petitioners, if arrested in connection with crimeno.1193/2011 of the Kasaragod police station, shall bereleased on bail on their executing bonds forRs.30,000/- (thirty thousand only) each with two solvent B.A No. 8848/2016
sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of theinvestigating officer. The petitioners shall co-operatewith the investigation. They shall make themselvesavailable for interrogation as and when required by theinvestigating officer for a period of three months or tillthe filing of the final report, whichever is earlier. Thepetitioners shall not intimidate witnesses or try toinfluence them. Nor shall the petitioners destroyevidence or tamper with it. The learned Magistratewho has jurisdiction to try the case is herebyempowered to cancel the bail in the event of breach ofany of the conditions mentioned above.
Sd/-
A.M. BABU, JUDGE
jjj 30/12/16
//True Copy//
P.A. to Judge