High CourtsSingle Bench

K.M Aboobacker vs State Of Kerala

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 15 November 2023 · Citation: (2023) 11 KL CK 0174

HON’BLE JUDGES
Dr. Kauser Edappagath, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 294(b), 307, 323, 342, 506 · Arms Act, 1959 — Section 3(1), 7, 25(1)(b), 251(1B)(a)
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 9323 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

11 paragraphs · 371 words

Dr. Kauser Edappagath, J

1.

This Crl.M.C. has been filed challenging the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class – 1 in CMP No.2950/23 in Crime No.872/2023 dated 17th October, 2023.

2.

The petitioner is the accused No.1 in Crime No.872/2023 of Perumbavoor Police Station, Ernakulam. The offences alleged are punishable under sections 342, 323, 307, 294(b), 506 of the IPC and Sections 3(1), 25(1)(b), 7, 251(1-B)(a) of the Arms Act. He was granted bail by this court as per order dated 1/9/2023 in BA No.7521/2023 on conditions. Condition Nos.(iii) and (vi) in the bail order are as follows:

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

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

3.

The petitioner moved a petition before the learned Magistrate as CMP No.2950/23 to lift the above conditions. The learned Magistrate after hearing both sides dismissed the said petition as per Annexure A2 order. It is under challenge in this Crl.M.C.

4.

I have heard Smt.Anupa Anna Jose Kandoth, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.E.C.Bineesh, the learned Public Prosecutor.

5.

The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that substantial portion of the investigation is over. He also submitted that the petitioner has criminal antecedents and there are six other criminal cases against him. In these circumstances, the learned Public Prosecutor opposed the modification. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a businessman and he is having business at Tamil Nadu and Karnataka besides Kerala. Considering the rival contentions, I am of the view that the conditions Nos.(iii) and (vi) can be modified as follows:

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

“(vi) The petitioner shall not leave the State of Kerala without the permission of the trial court. However, he is permitted to travel to Tamil Nadu and Karnataka only for his business purpose.”

Crl.M.C. is disposed of as above.