High CourtsSingle Bench

Ashif Abdul Basheer vs State Of Kerala

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 19 October 2023 · Citation: (2023) 10 KL CK 0115

HON’BLE JUDGES
Mohammed Nias C.P., J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 439 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 379
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Bail Application No. 9011 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

13 paragraphs · 400 words

Mohammed Nias C.P.J

1.

This is an application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking regular bail.

2.

The petitioners are the accused in Crime No.699/2023 of Mayyil police station, Kannur, for having committed offences punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code.

3.

The prosecution case is that on 18.08.2023 between 01.00 hours and 06.00, the accused stole a Tempo Traveller bearing registration No.KL-43-J-2300 worth Rs.11,00,000/-belonging to the defacto complainant, which was parked near the Vachappuram road margin at Marath amsom, thereby, the accused is said to have committed the offences alleged.

4.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would say that the petitioners are totally innocent and falsely implicated with ulterior motives. At any rate, he points out that the petitioners are in custody from 28.09.2023, and continued custody of the petitioners is unnecessary.

5.

The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the petition.

6.

After having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor and taking into account the fact that the 1st petitioner was the owner of the vehicle that the financier seized and the financier sold the said vehicle, and the said purchaser filed a complainant before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Vadakara. In such circumstances, I find force in the petitioners' contentions that the offence under Section 379 is not attracted. Considering the fact that they have been in custody since 28.09.2023 and there are no antecedents against the petitioners, since there is no apprehension raised by the prosecution that if released on bail, the petitioners are likely to abscond, I hold that bail can be granted to the petitioners.

Accordingly, this application is allowed, and the petitioners are granted bail subject to the following conditions:-

(i) The petitioners shall be released on bail on executing separate bonds for Rs.50000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court;

(ii) The petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer as and when directed.

(iii) The petitioners shall not tamper or attempt to tamper with the evidence or influence or try to influence the witnesses;

(v) The petitioners shall not be involved in any other crime while on bail.

(vi) If any of the conditions are violated, the court concerned will be empowered to take steps for cancellation of bail as per law;