Jafar Vs. State of Kerala

Jafar vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Feb 05, 2014

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1128785

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/1128785
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr.Justice M.L.Joseph Francis
Decided On: Feb 05, 2014
Subject: Right to Information

Case Summary

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

Right to Information

Key legal issue: Right to Information

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Jafar

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....the accused persons alleged to have committed the offences under sections 143, 147, 323, 326 read with section 149 of the ipc.3. heard the learned counsel for the applicants, the learned public prosecutor and the learned counsel for the for de-facto complainant. the learned public prosecutor and the learned counsel for the complainant strongly opposed the anticipatory bail application mainly on the ground that several criminal cases are pending against the petitioners are and granting anticipatory bail at this stage will adversely affect the investigation. the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are students of government law college and they are falsely implicated due to political influence of the de-facto complainant. the learned counsel for b. a.713/14 :3: the petitioners submitted that the accused nos.10 and 11 were arrested by the police on 19.12.2013 and they were produced before the additional chief judicial magistrate court, ernakulam and they were released on bail on the same day.4. the public prosecutor produced c.d. for perusal. c.d. shows that most of the material witnesses were questioned by the police and their statement were recorded. considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that arrest and detention of the petitioners is necessary for the purpose of investigation. since the statement of material witnesses have been recorded, i am of the view that granting of anticipatory bail at this stage with suitable conditions will not adversely affect the further investigation. accordingly this anticipatory bail application is allowed. it is directed in the event of arrest of petitioners in connection with the above case, they shall be released on bail on b. a.713/14 :4: executing bonds for `25,000/- each with two sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the officer effecting the arrest. the petitioners are directed to appear before the investigating officer as and when required. it.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS WEDNESDAY, THE5H DAY OF FEBRUARY201416TH MAGHA, 1935 Bail Appl.No. 713 of 2014 () ------------------------------ (JUDGMENT

IN CRL.MC352014 of I ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM) (CRIME NO. 2459/2013 OF ERNAKULAM POLICE STATION , ERNAKULAM) APPLICANTS/ACCUSED NOS.1 TO4 6,7 AND9 ----------------------------------------------------------------- 1. JAFAR, AGED24YEARS S/O.IBRAHIM, PANERI HOUSE, VLLAKKODE P.O. IRITTY VIA., KANNUR DISTRICT.

2. MOHAMMED ASHKAR, AGED22YEARS S/O.E.NAZEEM, BUNGLAW PARAMBIL HOUSE, CANAL WARD ALAPPUZHA68800.

3. AMEER, AGED22YEARS S/O.MYDEEN, AALIYAKUNNEL HOUSE, PALPRA KAVALA MUDAVOOR P.O., MUVATTUPUZHA.

4. ARUN RAMESH, AGED23YEARS S/O.REMESAN PILLAI, PULINCHUVATTIL HOUSE PALLIPPURAM P.O., CHERTHALA68854.

5. AMAL.C.S. AGED22YEARS S/O.SOHAN.B., CHERUPARAMBIL HOUSE KADAKKARAPPALLI P.O., CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA.

6. SHANDAS.N.M., AGED28YEARS S/O.P.G.MOHANDAS, NISHA BHAVAN, ATHIRUNKAL.P.O. KOODAL, PATHANAMTHITTA68969.

7. RENJITH RAJAPPAN AGED24YEARS S/O.RADHAMANI RAJAPPAN, NEDUNGATTU HOUSE KONNATHADY P.O., MARARIKULAM, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADVS.SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU (SR.) SRI.VIPIN NARAYAN SRI.THOMAS J.ANAKKALLUNKAL RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R, DEFACTO COMPLAINANT BY ADV. SRI.VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE R BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI LIJU V STEPHEN THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON0302-2014, THE COURT ON052-2014 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS J., - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Bail Application No.713 of 2014 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 5th day of February 2014 ORDER

The applicants herein are the accused Nos.1 to 4, 6, 7 and 9 in Crime No.2459 of 2013 of Central Police Station, Ernakulam. The offences alleged against the applicants are punishable under Sections 143, 147, 323, 326 read with Section 149 of the IPC.

2. The prosecution case is that on 6.12.2013 at 10.30 a.m., the accused persons caused hurt to the complainant's friend and the complainant went to Principal's room for giving complaint against the matter. The accused persons formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and in prosecuting their B. A.713/14 :2: common object caused hurt to the complainant using an iron rod (idikkatta) and wooden piece and punched his face resulting injuries to his nose and right hand index finger and thereby the accused persons alleged to have committed the offences under Sections 143, 147, 323, 326 read with Section 149 of the IPC.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the applicants, the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the for de-facto complainant. The learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the complainant strongly opposed the anticipatory bail application mainly on the ground that several criminal cases are pending against the petitioners are and granting anticipatory bail at this stage will adversely affect the investigation. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are students of Government Law College and they are falsely implicated due to political influence of the de-facto complainant. The learned counsel for B. A.713/14 :3: the petitioners submitted that the accused Nos.10 and 11 were arrested by the police on 19.12.2013 and they were produced before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam and they were released on bail on the same day.

4. The Public Prosecutor produced C.D. for perusal. C.D. shows that most of the material witnesses were questioned by the police and their statement were recorded. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that arrest and detention of the petitioners is necessary for the purpose of investigation. Since the statement of material witnesses have been recorded, I am of the view that granting of anticipatory bail at this stage with suitable conditions will not adversely affect the further investigation. Accordingly this anticipatory bail application is allowed. It is directed in the event of arrest of petitioners in connection with the above case, they shall be released on bail on B. A.713/14 :4: executing bonds for `25,000/- each with two sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Officer effecting the arrest. The petitioners are directed to appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required. It is made clear that if the petitioners surrender before the Judicial Magistrate having jurisdiction within 30 days from today, they shall be released on bail on executing bonds for `25,000/- each with two sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate. In that case also the petitioners are directed to appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required. Sd/- M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, (JUDGE) dl/ // TRUE COPY // PA TO JUDGE

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2014 Same Parties Jafar vs State of Kerala Same Subject Right to Information Same Judge Honourable Mr.Justice M.L.Joseph Francis