Mohammed Haneefa Vs STATE OF KERALA

Mohammed Haneefa vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Feb 24, 2022

~5 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1445813

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/1445813
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr. Justice Gopinath P.
Decided On: Feb 24, 2022
Case Number: Bail Appl./711/2022

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Mohammed Haneefa

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....alappuzha district alleging commission of offences under sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 452, 323, 324, 506, 427, 365, 368, 370 of the ipc and section 27 of the arms act, 1959.2. the crime was registered on the basis of theinformation given by the defacto complainant that the accused in the case trespassed into the house of the defacto complainant, assaulted his wife, kidnapped her and thereafter left her at a spot on the way to palakkad and thereby they committed the offences alleged against them. it is alleged that the accused persons had assaulted the wife of the defacto complainant on the premise that she had refused to hand over certain gold (illegally smuggled) which she had brought from dubai, which was entrusted to her by the petitioner herein.3. learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even in thefir, there is nothing to indicate that the petitioner had entrusted any gold with the wife of the defacto complainant. it is submitted that the statement of the wife of the defacto complainant herself is that she had not brought any gold from dubai. it is submitted that on the date of the alleged incident, the petitioner was in dubai. it is submitted that the petitioner has nothing to do with the case and he has been falsely implicated in the matter. it is submitted that the petitioner had no occasion to entrust any gold with the wife of the defacto complainant and he has no connection whatsoever, with the other accused in the case.4. learned public prosecutor submits that theinvestigation conducted thus far reveals that the petitioner had entrusted a huge quantity of gold with the wife of the defacto complainant and on reaching india, she had not handed over the gold to the person to whom it was to be handed over, as a result of which the other accused in the case had assaulted and kidnapped the wife of the defacto complainant on the instructions of the petitioner. it is submitted that arrest and interrogation of the petitioner is absolutely necessary in.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P. THURSDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 / 5TH PHALGUNA, 1943 PETITIONER: MOHAMMED HANEEFA AGED 41 YEARS K.K.HOUSE, VELIYANCODE.P.O., MALAPPURAM, PIN - 679580 BY ADVS. A.RAJASIMHAN VYKHARI.K.U K.KAVYA MOHAN RESPONDENT: STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM , PIN - 682031 SRI. M.C. ASHI (PP) THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.02.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

Petitioner is stated to be an accused in Crime No.271/2021 of the Mannar Police Station, Alappuzha district alleging commission of offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 452, 323, 324, 506, 427, 365, 368, 370 of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959.

2. The crime was registered on the basis of the

information given by the defacto complainant that the accused in the case trespassed into the house of the defacto complainant, assaulted his wife, kidnapped her and thereafter left her at a spot on the way to Palakkad and thereby they committed the offences alleged against them. It is alleged that the accused persons had assaulted the wife of the defacto complainant on the premise that she had refused to hand over certain gold (illegally smuggled) which she had brought from Dubai, which was entrusted to her by the petitioner herein.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even in the

FIR, there is nothing to indicate that the petitioner had entrusted any gold with the wife of the defacto complainant. It is submitted that the statement of the wife of the defacto complainant herself is that she had not brought any gold from Dubai. It is submitted that on the date of the alleged incident, the petitioner was in Dubai. It is submitted that the petitioner has nothing to do with the case and he has been falsely implicated in the matter. It is submitted that the petitioner had no occasion to entrust any gold with the wife of the defacto complainant and he has no connection whatsoever, with the other accused in the case.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that the

investigation conducted thus far reveals that the petitioner had entrusted a huge quantity of gold with the wife of the defacto complainant and on reaching India, she had not handed over the gold to the person to whom it was to be handed over, as a result of which the other accused in the case had assaulted and kidnapped the wife of the defacto complainant on the instructions of the petitioner. It is submitted that arrest and interrogation of the petitioner is absolutely necessary in the matter. It is submitted that though final report has been filed, it is a split charge and the fact that the petitioner's name is not mentioned in the final report does not mean that the petitioner is not an accused in the case.

5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case

and considering the fact that the petitioner has now produced Annexure-A2 ticket which indicates that he will arrive at Kochi on 01.03.2022 from Dubai, I am of the view that this bail application is maintainable. I am also of the view that for a proper investigation in the matter, it is enough if the petitioner is directed to appear before the investigating officer, after surrendering, upon reaching India.

6. In the result, this bail application is allowed. It is directed

that the petitioner shall be released on anticipatory bail, in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No.271/2021 of the Mannar Police Station subject to the following conditions:-

(I) Petitioner shall execute bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court;

(ii) Petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer in Crime No.271/2021 of the Mannar Police Station at 10:00 AM on 03.03.2022, 04.03.2022 and 05.03.2022 and thereafter whenever called upon to do so.

(iii) Petitioner shall surrender his passport before the

jurisdictional court. If the petitioner makes an application before the jurisdictional court for permission to go abroad, the same shall be considered on merits and if permission is granted, the passport can be released from the period for which the petitioner is permitted go abroad.

(iv) Petitioner shall not attempt to interfere with the investigation, influence or intimidate any witness in Crime No.271/2021 of the Mannar Police Station;

(v) Petitioner shall not involve in any other crime while on bail. If any of the aforesaid conditions are violated, the Investigating officer in Crime No.271/2021 of the Mannar Police Station may file an application before the jurisdictional Court for cancellation of bail.

Sd/- GOPINATH P. JUDGE AJ APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 711/2022 PETITIONER ANNEXURES AnnexureA1 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR NO. 271/2021 DATED 22-2-2021 OF MANNAR POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA AnnexureA2 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONER'S FLIGHT TICKET DATED 19.02.2022

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2022 Same Parties Mohammed Haneefa vs State of Kerala Same Judge Honourable Mr. Justice Gopinath P.