High CourtsSingle Bench

Sulfi Nooh Abdul Rahman vs State Of Kerala

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 3 January 2024 · Citation: (2024) 01 KL CK 0006

HON’BLE JUDGES
Mohammed Nias C.P., J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 174, 439 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 304, 308, 324, 427
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Bail Application No. 11406 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

14 paragraphs · 494 words

Mohammed Nias C.P., J

1.

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

2.

The petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.1806/2023 of Kollam Eravipuram Police Station, Kollam district, for having committed offences punishable under Sections 427, 324, 308 & 304 of the Indian Penal Code.

3.

The prosecution allegation is that at about 10:45 Pm on 21-10-2023, the accused, in a drunken state, drove a car bearing Reg.No KL 36 B 7786 in a rash and negligent manner from Kottiyam to Kollam in east to west direction and as the car reached in front of Hayat Hotel, Kollam hit on the bike bearing Reg No.KL-02 AT 350, which was ridden by the defacto complainant's brother, causing serious head injury to the defacto complainant's brother, and later, he succumbed to the injuries at Ananthapuri Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram. It is further alleged that the petitioner, without stopping the vehicle after this incident, drove towards Kottiyam and, as the petitioner reached Pazhayatinkuzhi, hit another bike bearing reg No.KL 23 H 7577 caused injuries to the rider and the pillion rider. The accused thereby committed the aforesaid offences.

4.

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.

5.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would say that the petitioner is innocent and falsely implicated with ulterior motives. At any rate, he points out that the petitioner has been in custody since 21/10/2023, and continued custody of the petitioner is unnecessary.

6.

The learned public prosecutor opposed the petition and pointed out that the petitioner is not entitled to bail.

7.

After having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor, the fact that the petitioner has been in custody since 21/10/2023, and the fact that his father is stated to be undergoing treatment in the Regional Cancer Centre, Thiruvananthapuram and his wife is pregnant and also since there is no apprehension raised by the prosecution that if released on bail, the petitioner is likely to abscond. Under such circumstances, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

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

(i) The petitioner shall be released on bail on executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) 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 petitioner shall not tamper or attempt to tamper with the evidence or influence or try to influence the witnesses.

(iv) The petitioner shall not be involved in any other crime while on bail or leave India without the prior permission of the Court concerned.

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