High CourtsSingle Bench

Abdul Thaheer vs State Of Kerala

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 29 March 2023 · Citation: (2023) 03 KL CK 0276

HON’BLE JUDGES
Dr. Kauser Edappagath, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 439 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 34, 109, 115, 116, 118, 120(b), 143, 144, 147, 148, 149, 201, 212, 302, 341, 465, 471 · Arms Act, 1959 — Section 7(a)(b), 27(3)
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Bail Application No. 2415 Of 2023
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

15 paragraphs · 551 words

Dr. Kauser Edappagath, J

1.

This application is filed u/s 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking regular bail.

2.

The applicant is accused No.15 in Crime No.1989/2023 of Town South Police Station, Palakkad. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 341, 302, 120(b), 201, 212, 109, 115, 116, 118, 465, 471 r/w 34, 149 of IPC and Section 27(3) r/w 7(a)(b) of Arms Act, 1959.

3.

The prosecution case, in short, is that on 15.11.2021 at 8.45 a.m. at Elapully, the accused Nos.1,2 and other three accused who came in a Maruthi 800 car rammed the motorcycle bearing registration No.KL 09 AF 7503 in which the defacto complainant and her husband were traveling and they fell on the road. The accused who formed an unlawful assembly and were armed with deadly weapons repeatedly stabbed the husband of the defacto complainant, and in the result, the victim succumbed to the injuries. The applicant is alleged to have taken part in the conspiracy to commit murder and thereby committed the offence.

4.

I have heard Sri. Sunny Mathew, the learned counsel for the applicant and Sri.M.P.Prasanth, the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the case diary.

5.

The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The counsel further submitted that no materials are on record to connect the applicant with the alleged crime; hence, he is entitled to get bail. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the alleged incident occurred as a part of the intentional criminal acts of the applicant, and he is not entitled to bail at this stage.

6.

The applicant was remanded to judicial custody on 23.01.2023. There is no specific allegation against the applicant to attract Section 302 of IPC. The only allegation against the applicant is that, he has harbored the main culprits after the incident. He has no criminal antecedents. For all these reasons, I do not find any reason to hold that the continued detention of the applicant is required for any purpose. Hence, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

In the result, the application is allowed on the following conditions: -

(i) The applicant shall be released on bail on executing a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Magistrate/Court.

(ii) The applicant shall fully co-operate with the investigation.

(iii) The applicant shall appear before the investigating officer between 10.00 a.m and 11.00 a.m. on every Saturday until further orders. He shall also appear before the investigating officer as and when required.

(iv) The applicant shall not commit any offence of a like nature while on bail.

(v) The applicant shall not attempt to contact any of the prosecution witnesses, directly or through any other person, or in any other way try to tamper with the evidence or influence any witnesses or other persons related to the investigation.

(vi) The applicant shall not leave the State of Kerala without the permission of the trial Court.

(vii) The application, if any, for deletion/modification of the bail conditions or cancellation of bail on the grounds of violating the bail conditions shall be filed at the jurisdictional court.