Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Mujeeb Rahman vs State of Kerala

Mujeeb Rahman vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Mar 31, 2023
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1341649

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

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Kerala High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
Bail Appl./1710/2023

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Mujeeb Rahman

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....sr.public prosecutor this bail application having come up for admission on 31.03.2023, the court on the same day delivered the following:orderdated this the 31st day of march, 2023 this is an application for anticipatory bail filed under section 438 of the code of criminal procedure by the petitioner, who is the accused in s.c.no.119/2017, pending before the assistant sessions judge, ottapalam2. heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned public prosecutor.3. i have perused the relevant documents form part of the case diary, placed by the learned public prosecutor.4. in this matter, shornur police registered crimeno.262/2016, alleging commission of offences punishable under sections 341, 354 and 307 of ipc by the accused. thereafter, he was arrested and released on bail by imposing conditions. subsequently, the petitioner absconded and which led to issuance of warrant and finally, issuance of steps under sections 82 and 83 of cr.p.c. it is at this juncture, the petitioner herein approached this court and pressed for relief of anticipatory bail.5. it is submitted by the learned counsel for thepetitioner that the petitioner is innocent and there was communication gap in between the learned counsel for the accused and the petitioner and accordingly, he could not appear before the trial court. it is also submitted that the petitioner is ready to surrender before the trial court and to co- operate with the investigation.6. whereas it is submitted by the learned publicprosecutor that the petitioner, who has been absconding, in violation of the terms of the bail bond executed earlier, for a period of five years, seeks the relief of pre-arrest bail and the same cannot be granted since very serious offences are alleged to be committed by him. further, the petitioner absconded from trial and at the verge of arrest, in view of the coercive steps, he moved this application seeking anticipatory bail. it is submitted further that if the.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN FRIDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 10TH CHAITHRA, 1945 PETITIONER: MUJEEB RAHMAN @ MUJEEB, AGED 48 YEARS S/O MOHAMMED HUSSAIN, MAVIDICHA HOUSE, PARAL, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676505 BY ADV DENIZEN KOMATH RESPONDENTS: 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER, SHORNUR POLICE STATION, SHORNUR, PALAKKAD, KERALA, PIN - 679121 BY SRI.P.G.MANU, SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31.03.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

Dated this the 31st day of March, 2023 This is an application for anticipatory bail filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the petitioner, who is the accused in S.C.No.119/2017, pending before the Assistant Sessions Judge, Ottapalam

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor.

3. I have perused the relevant documents form part of the case diary, placed by the learned Public Prosecutor.

4. In this matter, Shornur police registered crime

No.262/2016, alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 341, 354 and 307 of IPC by the accused. Thereafter, he was arrested and released on bail by imposing conditions. Subsequently, the petitioner absconded and which led to issuance of warrant and finally, issuance of steps under Sections 82 and 83 of Cr.P.C. It is at this juncture, the petitioner herein approached this Court and pressed for relief of anticipatory bail.

5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the

petitioner that the petitioner is innocent and there was communication gap in between the learned counsel for the accused and the petitioner and accordingly, he could not appear before the trial court. It is also submitted that the petitioner is ready to surrender before the trial court and to co- operate with the investigation.

6. Whereas it is submitted by the learned Public

Prosecutor that the petitioner, who has been absconding, in violation of the terms of the bail bond executed earlier, for a period of five years, seeks the relief of pre-arrest bail and the same cannot be granted since very serious offences are alleged to be committed by him. Further, the petitioner absconded from trial and at the verge of arrest, in view of the coercive steps, he moved this application seeking anticipatory bail. It is submitted further that if the petitioner would be released on bail, he would flee from trial.

7. On perusal of the prosecution records, issuance of

non-bailable warrant and steps under Sections 82 and 83 of Cr.P.C. with posting date 30.03.2023, could be gathered. Thus, without much ado, this is a case, in which the petitioner herein absconded from trial for a long period, which led to issuance of coercive steps to declare the petitioner as a 'proclaimed offender'. The case stood posted on 30.03.2023.

8. It appears that the explanation given by the learned

counsel for the petitioner that communication gap in between the learned counsel and the petitioner led to non-appearance of the petitioner cannot be believed at this point. Therefore, there shall be a direction to the petitioner to

surrender before the Investigating Officer, within a period of ten days from today, and move for regular bail, in accordance with law. If such an application is moved, the learned Assistant Sessions, Judge, Ottapalam is directed to consider the same and pass orders thereon, purely on merits, in consideration of the argument at the instance of the petitioner in order to secure the presence of the accused for trial, without fail.

With the above direction, this petition stands disposed of. Sd/- A. BADHARUDEEN JUDGE nkr

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial