High CourtsSingle Bench

Ahammed Shafeeque And Ors vs State Of Kerala

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 18 February 2021 · Citation: (2021) 02 KL CK 0119

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ashok Menon, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 438 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 143, 147, 148, 149, 294(b), 308, 324, 326, 341
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Bail Application No. 1291 Of 2021
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

23 paragraphs · 461 words
1.

This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.

2.

The applicants are accused 1, 2, 3 and 6 respectively in Crime No.672/2020 of Badiadka Police Station for having allegedly committed the offences

punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 294(b), 308, 324 and 341 read with Section 149 of the I.P.C. Section 326 of the I.P.C. has also been

incorporated subsequently.

3.

The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 04.12.2020 between 7.00 PM and 8.45 PM, the applicants, who were members of an unlawful assembly

and in prosecution of the common object of the said unlawful assembly to assault the husband of the de facto complainant, they committed riot, armed

with dangerous weapons like iron rod, assaulted him causing fracture to his both legs and the iron rod was wielded by the 1st accused.

4.

The applicants state that the allegations are not true and that they are innocent, and therefore, they seek pre-arrest bail.

5.

Heard the learned Counsel for the applicants and the learned Public Prosecutor.

6.

The learned Public Prosecutor points out that the 1st accused the main perpetrator of the crime and accused 1 and 2 have criminal antecedents, and

therefore, the bail application was vehemently opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor.

7.

After having heard the submissions on both sides, I find that the main overt act of having caused injury to the husband of the de facto complainant is

attributed to the 1st accused. The 2nd accused has also criminal antecedents and the rest of the accused do not have any criminal antecedents. Under

the circumstances, I do not find any reason to decline anticipatory bail to applicants 3 and 4.

In the result, the bail application is allowed in part and the applicants are directed to surrender before the investigating officer within two weeks. After

interrogation and recovery, if any, applicants 1 and 2 shall be produced before the jurisdictional court, where they are at liberty to apply for regular bail,

which shall be considered and disposed of preferably on the very same day. Applicants 3 and 4, after interrogation, shall be released on bail on the

execution of a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) each, with two solvent sureties for the like amount each, to the satisfaction of the

investigating officer, and on the following conditions:

(i) They shall not influence or intimidate witnesses or tamper with evidence;

(ii) They shall appear before the investigating officer as and when called for and shall cooperate with the investigation; and

(iii)During the bail period, they shall not get involved in any similar offences.

In case of breach of the bail conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to apply for cancellation of the bail before the jurisdictional court.