Suhail vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Orders Decided Aug 11, 2021

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1633355

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/1633355
Court: Kerala Orders High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr. Justice K.Haripal
Decided On: Aug 11, 2021
Case Number: Bail Appl./3332/2021

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Suhail

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....326, 367, 308 r/w 34 of the ipc. there are four accused in the crime. the cause of action for the registration of the crime had taken place on 23.03.2021 at 11 a.m. it is alleged that the accused persons had tress passed upon the residence of the defacto complainant and he was abducted in a car, taken to a place by name mayippadi and attacked and injured him and caused him grievous hurt. it is also alleged that he sustained grievous injuries.2. heard the learned counsel on both sides.3. according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the4th accused has already been arrested and released on bail, that the defacto complainant had made representation before the 3rd accused, that he is the managing director of a company by name s9 trading company, offering to share the profits of the partnership, the 3 rdaccused was made to invest an amount of rs.30,00,000/- ,when that was not returned nor the profit was given. annexure a2 complainant was given before the sub inspector, vidyanagar police station, pursuant to which crime 106/2021 of vidyanagar police station which was registered alleging offence under section 420 of the ipc. on registering the crime the defacto complainant had absconded from the place. later, on getting information, that he had returned to his house, the petitioners and another had approached him at his residence, then he offered to arrange the money from his friend and under that pretext he accompanied the petitioners and they moved to a different place. but after some time he tried to run away from the vehicle. then a scuffle occurred, and the petitioners have not used any criminal clause against him. these are the contentions for the learned counsel for the petitioners.4. the learned senior public prosecutor has opposed theapplications. according to her, the petitioners had attacked the defacto complainant with an iron rod and other weapons and then abandoned on the road, causing loss of blood. they had also beaten on the right leg using the.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARIPAL WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 20TH SRAVANA, 1943 BAIL APPL. NO. 3332 OF 2021 (IN CRIME NO.130/2021 OF VIDYANAGAR POLICE STATION, KASARGODE DISTRICT) PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.2 & 3: 1 SUHAIL, S/O MUHAMMED, AGED 26 YEARS KORKKAD HOUSE, KOLLAMBADI P.O., ANANGOOR, KASARGOD DISTRICT, PIN - 671121 2 FASAL, S/O MUHAMMED, AGED 36 YEARS KORKKAD HOUSE, KOLLAMBADI P.O., ANANGOOR, KASARGOD, PIN - 671121 BY ADVS. SALIM V.S. SRI.H.NUJUMUDEEN SMT.A.M.FOUSI RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 BY ADV SMT. NEEMA T.V.SR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.08.2021, ALONG WITH BAIL APPL..3776/2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARIPAL WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 20TH SRAVANA, 1943 BAIL APPL. NO. 3776 OF 2021 (IN CRIME NO.130/2021 OF VIDYANAGAR POLICE STATION, KASARGODE DISTRICT)
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1: SHANIB.P.K, S/O PERUMBA KUNHAMU, AGED 34 YEARS SHANIB,P,K SHAKEEFA MANZIL, CHALAKUNU, KASARGODE KASARGOD, PIN - 671123 BY ADV SALIM V.S. RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR - ADV.SMT. NEEMA T.V. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.08.2021, ALONG WITH BAIL APPL..3332/2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

Petitioners in bail application No.3332/2021 are accused Nos.2 and 3 in Crime No.130/2021 of Vidyangar police station, Kasargode District, where as the petitioner in bail application No.3776/2021 is the 1st accused in the very same crime. All of them face allegations under Sections 447, 427, 341, 324, 326, 367, 308 r/w 34 of the IPC. There are four accused in the crime. The cause of action for the registration of the crime had taken place on 23.03.2021 at 11 a.m. It is alleged that the accused persons had tress passed upon the residence of the defacto complainant and he was abducted in a car, taken to a place by name Mayippadi and attacked and injured him and caused him grievous hurt. It is also alleged that he sustained grievous injuries.

2. Heard the learned counsel on both sides.

3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the

4th accused has already been arrested and released on bail, that the defacto complainant had made representation before the 3rd accused, that he is the Managing Director of a Company by name S9 Trading Company, offering to share the profits of the partnership, the 3 rd

accused was made to invest an amount of Rs.30,00,000/- ,when that was not returned nor the profit was given. Annexure A2 complainant was given before the Sub Inspector, Vidyanagar police station, pursuant to which Crime 106/2021 of Vidyanagar police station which was registered alleging offence under Section 420 of the IPC. On registering the crime the defacto complainant had absconded from the place. Later, on getting information, that he had returned to his house, the petitioners and another had approached him at his residence, then he offered to arrange the money from his friend and under that pretext he accompanied the petitioners and they moved to a different place. But after some time he tried to run away from the vehicle. Then a scuffle occurred, and the petitioners have not used any criminal clause against him. These are the contentions for the learned counsel for the petitioners.

4. The learned Senior Public Prosecutor has opposed the

applications. According to her, the petitioners had attacked the defacto complainant with an iron rod and other weapons and then abandoned on the road, causing loss of blood. They had also beaten on the right leg using the iron rod. In the nature of the allegations, the weapons of the offence used by the petitioners have to be

recovered. It is an inevitable part of investigation. Therefore, it is not in the interest of the justice to release the petitioners by giving anticipatory bail. The application is not liable to be dismissed.

5. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioners

submitted that the petitioners are prepared to surrender before the Investigating Officer. In that case, their proceedings shall be taken with utmost expedition. If the weapons of offence could be recovered, the petitioners shall be produced before the jurisdictional court on the same day. The bail application is dismissed with the above observations. Sd/- K.HARIPAL JUDGE SMF

Same Court & Year Kerala Orders · 2021 Same Parties Suhail vs State of Kerala Same Judge Honourable Mr. Justice K.Haripal