Noufal vs Stat E of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Apr 07, 2020

~5 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1760809

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/1760809
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr. Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V
Decided On: Apr 07, 2020
Case Number: Bail Appl./2159/2020

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Noufal

Respondent

Stat E of Kerala

Excerpt

.....having committed offence punishable under sections 450, 461, 394 r/w. section 34 of the indian penal code.3. the prosecution against is that the applicant along with the 2ndaccused committed lurking house-trespass by night into the house of the de facto complainant and attacked her and her husband with weapons and took away gold ornaments and cash. the applicant herein was arrested on 7.10.2019 and he remains in custody.4. the learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that theapplicant herein has been in custody for over six months and as the final report has already been laid his further detention in custody is unwarranted. the learned senior counsel would place reliance on the judgment of the apex court in dataram singh v. state of uttar pradesh [air 2018 sc 980] and contended that a humane attitude is required to be adopted while dealing with an application for remanding a suspect or an accused person to police custody or judicial custody, more so, when the accusations against him remain in the realm of accusations.5. sri. t.r.renjith, learned senior public prosecutor, has vehemently opposed the prayer. it is submitted that the applicant has earlier approached this court and his applications were dismissed.6. i have considered the submissions advanced and have gone through the records which are made available.7. though prima facie, the allegations appear to be very grave, it cannotbe ignored that a lockdown has been imposed in the country and the citizens therein have been advised to practice social distancing and to quarantine themselves. the hon’ble supreme court as well as a full bench of this court has issued directions to decongest the jails. in that view of the matter, i am of the considered opinion that the applicant herein can be granted provisional bail for a period of 30 days from today. in the result, this application will stand allowed. the superintendent of the jail wherein the applicant is incarcerated is directed to release the.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V TUESDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF APRIL, 2020 /18TH CHAITHRA, 1942 Bail Appl.No.2159 OF 2020 CRIME NO.1841/2019 OF KOTHAMANGALAM POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT PETITIONER/ACCUSED: NOUFAL, AGED 34 YEARS, S/O.SAITH, PANDYARAPPILLIL HOUSE, PEZHAKKAPPILLY KARA, MULAVOOR VILLAGE. BY ADV.SRI.BIJU C. ABRAHAM RESPONDENTS/STATE:
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.
2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
KOTHAMANGALAM POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-686 666. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.T.R.RENJITH THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.04.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

This application is filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.

2. The applicant herein is the 1st accused in Crime No. 1841/2019 of Kothamangalam Police Station for having committed offence punishable under Sections 450, 461, 394 r/w. Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The prosecution against is that the applicant along with the 2nd

accused committed lurking house-trespass by night into the house of the de facto complainant and attacked her and her husband with weapons and took away gold ornaments and cash. The applicant herein was arrested on 7.10.2019 and he remains in custody.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the

applicant herein has been in custody for over six months and as the final report has already been laid his further detention in custody is unwarranted. The learned Senior counsel would place reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in Dataram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh [AIR 2018 SC 980] and contended that a humane attitude is required to be adopted while dealing with an application for remanding a suspect or an accused person to police custody or judicial custody, more so, when the accusations against him remain in the realm of accusations.

5. Sri. T.R.Renjith, learned Senior Public Prosecutor, has vehemently opposed the prayer. It is submitted that the applicant has earlier approached this Court and his applications were dismissed.

6. I have considered the submissions advanced and have gone through the records which are made available.

7. Though prima facie, the allegations appear to be very grave, it cannot

be ignored that a lockdown has been imposed in the Country and the citizens therein have been advised to practice social distancing and to quarantine themselves. The Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as a Full Bench of this Court has issued directions to decongest the Jails. In that view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the applicant herein can be granted provisional bail for a period of 30 days from today. In the result, this application will stand allowed. The Superintendent of the jail wherein the applicant is incarcerated is directed to release the applicant provisionally on bail for a period of 30 days on the applicant executing a personal bond without sureties. The above order shall be subject to the following conditions:

i. The applicant shall furnish to the Jail Superintendent, the permanent place of his abode, and he shall undertake that he will remain in quarantine for a period of 30 days from the date of this order. He shall also furnish his phone number and the phone number of his immediate relative. Before releasing the accused, the Superintendent of Jail concerned shall verify the above details. The Superintendent of Jail shall also intimate the release of the applicant to the Station House Officer of the Police Station which has registered the crime.

ii. On being released from prison, the applicant shall report before the jurisdictional police station and shall furnish a copy of the undertaking furnished before the Jail Superintendent. If the passport of the applicant has not yet been surrendered, the same shall be surrendered before the SHO concerned. The SHO concerned shall ensure that the applicant does not leave the premises, where he has undertaken to remain in quarantine till such time the lockdown period continues in force, otherwise than for emergent situations, and exceptional reasons provided under the orders passed by Central and State Governments, for COVID-19 pandemic.

iii. The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses in any manner whatsoever. iv. The applicant shall not commit any offense while on bail. v. On the expiry of 30 days, ordered as above, or within three days of the withdrawal of the lockdown by the Government, whichever is earlier, the applicant shall appear before the jurisdictional Court and seek regular bail and the Court shall consider his application on its merits and pass appropriate orders.

If the applicant violates any of the conditions above, the Station House Officer may approach the jurisdictional Court and may move an application for cancellation of bail, which shall be considered and disposed of by the said Court, notwithstanding the fact that interim bail has been granted by this Court. SD/- RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V. JUDGE ps/7/4/2020 //TRUE COPY// P.S.TO JUDGE

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2020 Same Parties Noufal vs Stat E of Kerala Same Judge Honourable Mr. Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V