Hameed Vs. State of Kerala

Hameed vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Sep 11, 2013

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1089182

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1089182
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr.Justice P.Bhavadasan
Decided On: Sep 11, 2013
Subject: Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Hameed

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....are alleged to have committed the offences punishable under sections 452, 294(b), 323, 354 and 427 read with section 34 of ipc.2. the allegation against petitioners is that on 24.08.2013 at about 6.40 pm, they trespassed into the property of the defacto complainant and assaulted her.3. petitioners would say that allegations against them are totally false and made with ulterior motive. they also pointed out that the incorporation of section 354 is with ulterior motive to see that petitioners are denied bail. they also say that they did not commit any act which constitute an offence.4. the learned public prosecutor opposed the petition and pointed out that the investigation is at an infant stage. b.a. no.6058/2013 -2- 5. after having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned public prosecutor and having perused the records, the claim of the petitioners that they are innocent cannot be accepted. the fact remains that a counter case is also registered as against the petitioners with regard to the same incident. taking note of this fact, it is felt that this is a fit case where extraordinary jurisdiction of this court needs to be exercised in favour of the petitioners. the petition is allowed as follows:1. petitioners shall surrender before the investigating officer on or before 20.09.2013, who, after interrogation, shall produce them before the jfcm court concerned, which court, on an application for bail being moved by the petitioners shall release them on bail on each of them executing a bond for a sum of ` 15,000/- (rupees fifteen thousand only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum each to b.a. no.6058/2013 -3- the satisfaction of the said court. 2) the court concerned shall ensure the identity of the sureties and the veracity of the tax receipts, before granting bail. 3) petitioners shall appear before the investigating officer on every tuesday between 9.00 am to 10.00 am until further orders. 4) petitioners shall not tamper or attempt to.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN WEDNESDAY, THE11H DAY OF SEPTEMBER201320TH BHADRA, 1935 Bail Appl..No. 6058 of 2013 () ---------------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER

/JUDGMENT

IN OS352013 of SUB COURT, THIRUVALLA CRIME NO. 448/2013 OF PERUMPETTY POLICE STATION , PATHANAMTITTA ---------------------- PETITIONERS/ACCUSED1 3 & 4: ----------------------------------------------- 1. HAMEED, S/O.MEERAN RAWTHER, AGED68YEARS, KUNNUMPURATH HOUSE, VAIPUR, CHERUTHOTTUVAZHI MURI, KOTTANGAL VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA.

2. ABDUL KAREEM, S/O.MEERAN RAWTHER, AGED65YEARS, KUNNUMPURATH HOUSE, VAIPUR, CHERUTHOTTUVAZHI MURI, KOTTANGAL VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA.

3. AHMAD KHAN, S/O.MEERAN RAWTHER, AGED60YEARS, KUNNUMPURATH HOUSE, VAIPUR, CHERUTHOTTUVAZHI MURI, KOTTANGAL VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. SRI.P.HARIDAS RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA-682031.

2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PERUMPATTY POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA-689645. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.DHANESH MATHEW MANJOORAN THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON1109-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PJ Bail Appl..No. 6058 of 2013 () ---------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES ANNEXURE1 COPY OF THE FIR NO.448/2013 DATED228/2013 OF PERUMPATTY POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE2 COPY OF ORDER

OF LEARNED SUB JUDGE, THIRUVALLA IN IA.NO.140/2013 IN OS.NO.35/2013. ANNEXURE3 COPY OF THE FIR NO.453/13 DATED238/2013 OF PERUMPATTY POLICE. RESPONDENTS ANNEXURES NIL. / TRUE COPY / P.S. TO JUDGE PJ P.BHAVADASAN, J.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A. No. 6058 of 2013 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 11th day of September, 2013 ORDER

The petitioners are accused Nos. 1, 3 and 4 in Crime No. 448 of 2013 of Perumpatty Police Station who are alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Sections 452, 294(b), 323, 354 and 427 read with Section 34 of IPC.

2. The allegation against petitioners is that on 24.08.2013 at about 6.40 pm, they trespassed into the property of the defacto complainant and assaulted her.

3. Petitioners would say that allegations against them are totally false and made with ulterior motive. They also pointed out that the incorporation of Section 354 is with ulterior motive to see that petitioners are denied bail. They also say that they did not commit any act which constitute an offence.

4. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the petition and pointed out that the investigation is at an infant stage. B.A. No.6058/2013 -2- 5. After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor and having perused the records, the claim of the petitioners that they are innocent cannot be accepted. The fact remains that a counter case is also registered as against the petitioners with regard to the same incident. Taking note of this fact, it is felt that this is a fit case where extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court needs to be exercised in favour of the petitioners. The petition is allowed as follows:

1. Petitioners shall surrender before the Investigating Officer on or before 20.09.2013, who, after interrogation, shall produce them before the JFCM court concerned, which court, on an application for bail being moved by the petitioners shall release them on bail on each of them executing a bond for a sum of ` 15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen thousand only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum each to B.A. No.6058/2013 -3- the satisfaction of the said court. 2) The court concerned shall ensure the identity of the sureties and the veracity of the tax receipts, before granting bail. 3) Petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer on every Tuesday between 9.00 am to 10.00 am until further orders. 4) Petitioners shall not tamper or attempt to tamper with the evidence and influence or try to influence the witnesses. 5) If any of the conditions is violated, the bail granted shall stand cancelled and the court concerned, of being satisfied of the said fact, may take such proceedings as are available in law. P.BHAVADASAN JUDGE ds

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2013 Same Parties Hameed vs State of Kerala Same Subject Education Same Judge Honourable Mr.Justice P.Bhavadasan