Rasheed vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Jun 29, 2020

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1774406

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/1774406
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr. Justice Ashok Menon
Decided On: Jun 29, 2020
Case Number: Bail Appl./3623/2020

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Rasheed

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....in brief is that the petitioners along with other co-accused total nine in number were all members of unlawful assembly, armed with deadly weapons committed riot and in prosecution of common object of unlawful assembly tocommit murder of the de facto complainant, the 1 st accusedchopped the left hand of the de facto complainant causing grievous injury to him and thereby committed the offence. accused nos.8 and 9 had allegedly threatened and intimidated the de facto complainant. the petitioners state that they are innocent and that they do not have criminal antecedents, and they have been incarcerated long enough and therefore they may be released on bail. b.a. nos.3623 & 3602 of 20202. the learned public prosecutor appearing for the statehave serious objections in granting bail to the petitioners. it is pointed out that the 8th accused is the person who was driving the car and had after the occurrence driven away the other accused in the car. the reasons for the alleged attack is that the de facto complainant was causing hurdles to the consumption and sale of ganja by the accused and hence they wanted to wreak vengeance upon the de facto complainant.3. it is pointed out that the 4 th accused was already granted anticipatory bail by this court, considering the fact thatthere was no specific overt act on his part. similarly, the 5 th accused was also granted regular bail on the premise that he was implicated only for being a member of unlawful assembly.4. the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners herein would state that the role of the petitioners is also minimal, and therefore they too may be released on bail. considering the entirety of facts and circumstances of thiscase, i find that the 1 st accused was the main perpetrator of the crime, who used a sword to chop of the hands of the de facto complainant. the other accused have only minimal role. they also do not have any antecedents. under the circumstances, i b.a. nos.3623 & 3602 of 2020 find.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON MONDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JUNE 2020 / 8TH ASHADHA, 1942 Bail Appl..No.3623 OF 2020 (crime No.803/2020 of Mathilakam Police Station) PETITIONER/S: RASHEED AGED 50 YEARS S/O. KHADER, VILAKKAPARAMBIL HOUSE, MULLANBAZAR DESOM, S.N PURAM VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.DHEERAJ RAJAN

RESPONDENT/S: STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. OTHER PRESENT: SRI.AMJAD ALI SR PP THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29.06.2020, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..3602/2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON MONDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JUNE 2020 / 8TH ASHADHA, 1942 Bail Appl..No.3602 OF 2020 CRIME NO.803/2020 OF Mathilakom Police Station , Thrissur PETITIONER/S: 1 MUHAMMED MUJTHABA @ JITHU AGED 22 YEARS S/O.SHAJAHAN, NADIYAPARAMBIL HOUSE, MULLANBAZAR DESOM, S.N.PURAM VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2 SHAJAHAN @ SHAJI, AGED 52 YEARS S/O.AKBAR ALI, NADIYAPARAMBIL HOUSE, MULLANBAZAR DESOM, S.N.PURAM VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.P.BIJU RESPONDENT/S: 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031. 2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, MATHILAKOM POLICE STATION, MATHILAKAM P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT-680685. SRI.AMJAD ALI SR.PP THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29.06.2020, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..3623/2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

COMMON ORDER

[ Bail Appl..3623/2020, Bail Appl..3602/2020 ] Dated this the 29th day of June 2020 The petitioner in bail application No.3623/2020 is the 3 rd accused, while the petitioners in bail application No.3602/2020 are accused Nos.8 & 9 in Crime No.803/2020 of Mathilakam

Police Station for having allegedly committed offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 326, 506 (ii), 120B and 307 IPC r/w Section 149 of IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The prosecution case in brief is that the petitioners along with other co-accused total nine in number were all members of unlawful assembly, armed with deadly weapons committed riot and in prosecution of common object of unlawful assembly to

commit murder of the de facto complainant, the 1 st accused

chopped the left hand of the de facto complainant causing grievous injury to him and thereby committed the offence. Accused Nos.8 and 9 had allegedly threatened and intimidated the de facto complainant. The petitioners state that they are innocent and that they do not have criminal antecedents, and they have been incarcerated long enough and therefore they may be released on bail. B.A. Nos.3623 & 3602 of 2020

2. The learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State

have serious objections in granting bail to the petitioners. It is pointed out that the 8th accused is the person who was driving the car and had after the occurrence driven away the other accused in the car. The reasons for the alleged attack is that the de facto complainant was causing hurdles to the consumption and sale of ganja by the accused and hence they wanted to wreak vengeance upon the de facto complainant.

3. It is pointed out that the 4 th accused was already granted anticipatory bail by this Court, considering the fact that

there was no specific overt act on his part. Similarly, the 5 th accused was also granted regular bail on the premise that he was implicated only for being a member of unlawful assembly.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners herein would state that the role of the petitioners is also minimal, and therefore they too may be released on bail. Considering the entirety of facts and circumstances of this

case, I find that the 1 st accused was the main perpetrator of the crime, who used a sword to chop of the hands of the de facto complainant. The other accused have only minimal role. They also do not have any antecedents. Under the circumstances, I B.A. Nos.3623 & 3602 of 2020 find that further incarceration of the petitioners may not be necessary. In the result, the Bail Applications are allowed and the petitioners are directed to be released on bail on execution of bond for Rs.50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand only) each with two solvent sureties, each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court and on further conditions:-

(i) They shall appear before the investigating officer on all Saturdays between 9 a.m. and 12 Noon for a period of three months or till the filing of the final report whichever is earlier.

(ii) They shall not tamper with evidence, intimidate or influence the witnesses .

(iii) They shall not get involved in similar offences during the currency of the bail.

(iv) They shall surrender their passport and if they do

not have one, shall file an affidavit to that effect before the jurisdictional court. In case of violation of any bail condition, the prosecution is at liberty to apply for cancellation of the bail before the jurisdictional court. SD/- ASHOK MENON JUDGE rmm

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2020 Same Parties Rasheed vs State of Kerala Same Judge Honourable Mr. Justice Ashok Menon