Mohamed Sameer B. vs the State of Kerala

Mohamed Sameer B. vs The State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Orders Decided Aug 06, 2021

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1656621

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/1656621
Court: Kerala Orders High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr. Justice K.Haripal
Decided On: Aug 06, 2021
Case Number: Bail Appl./5618/2021

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Mohamed Sameer B.

Respondent

The State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....come up for admission on 06.08.2021, the court on the same day delivered the following:orderthis is an application filed under section 438 of the cr.p.c. petitioner is the sole accused in crime no. 355 of 2021 of kasaragod police station, which was registered alleging offence punishable under sections 341, 324 and 294(b) of the ipc. later, since nasal bone fracture was noticed, section of law was altered and section 326 of the ipc also has been incorporated.2. the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, whilethe defacto complainant was moving in his lorry with panthal items, he had spat on the face of the petitioner, who was travelling on his motor cycle. on that count, some altercation ensued and no such incident had happened; if he had sustained injuries, that was due to fall from the bike.3. but the learned public prosecutor has opposed theapplication. according to her, after intercepting the lorry driven by the defacto complainant, the petitioner had hit him with a helmet and caused fracture to the nasal bone. everything was done suspecting that the defacto complainant had spat from the lorry at the petitioner.4. after having heard both sides and considering the gravityof the offence, i do not think that, the petitioner is entitled to be released granting anticipatory bail. the defacto complainant has suffered grievous hurt. in the nature of the allegations and for the smooth conduct of investigation, the weapon of offence and also the vehicle used by the petitioner require to be recovered, which is possible only after custodial interrogation. in the circumstances, petitioner is not entitled to get any relief.bail application is dismissed. sd/- k.haripal judge rmv/06/08/2021

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARIPAL FRIDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 15TH SRAVANA, 1943 IN CRIME NO.355 OF 2021 OF KASARAGOD POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD DISTRICT PETITIONER/ACCUSED: MOHAMED SAMEER B. AGED 34 YEARS S/O.ABDULLAKUNHI, BALLUR HOUSE, MOGRALPUTHUR, KASARGOD - 671 124. BY ADVS. K.R.AVINASH (KUNNATH) ABDUL RAOOF PALLIPATH M.K.SUMOD PRAJIT RATNAKARAN RAJ CAROLIN V. RESPONDENT/STATE: THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031. SR.PP - SMT. SREEJA V. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.08.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

This is an application filed under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. Petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No. 355 of 2021 of Kasaragod police station, which was registered alleging offence punishable under Sections 341, 324 and 294(b) of the IPC. Later, since nasal bone fracture was noticed, section of law was altered and Section 326 of the IPC also has been incorporated.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, while

the defacto complainant was moving in his lorry with panthal items, he had spat on the face of the petitioner, who was travelling on his motor cycle. On that count, some altercation ensued and no such incident had happened; if he had sustained injuries, that was due to fall from the bike.

3. But the learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the

application. According to her, after intercepting the lorry driven by the defacto complainant, the petitioner had hit him with a helmet and caused fracture to the nasal bone. Everything was done suspecting that the defacto complainant had spat from the lorry at the petitioner.

4. After having heard both sides and considering the gravity

of the offence, I do not think that, the petitioner is entitled to be released granting anticipatory bail. The defacto complainant has suffered grievous hurt. In the nature of the allegations and for the smooth conduct of investigation, the weapon of offence and also the vehicle used by the petitioner require to be recovered, which is possible only after custodial interrogation. In the circumstances, petitioner is not entitled to get any relief.

Bail application is dismissed. Sd/- K.HARIPAL JUDGE RMV/06/08/2021

Same Court & Year Kerala Orders · 2021 Same Parties Mohamed Sameer B. vs The State of Kerala Same Judge Honourable Mr. Justice K.Haripal