Sabith v. State Of Kerala
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF DECEMBER 2015/2ND POUSHA, 1937 Bail Appl..No. 8021 of 2015 ------------------------------- CRIME NO. 96/2015 OF NADAPURAM POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. ........
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED 2,3,&5:
------------------------------------------------
1. SABITH, AGED 23 YEARS, S/O ABDUL RAHMAN, KAVUTHIYAL, PARODE P.O, VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.
2. ANAS, AGED 18 YEARS, S/O ALI, THAYYULLATHIL HOUSE, PARODE P.O, VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.
3. SMEER, AGED 27 YEARS, S/O MOIDU, KOROTH HOUSE, PARODE P.O, VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.S.RAJEEV SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN SRI.V.VINAY RESPONDENT(S)/STATE:
------------------------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PRSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.
(CRIME NO. 96/15 OF NADAPURAM POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT)
2. STATION HOUSE OFFICER, NADAPURAM POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673 504, (CRIME NO. 96/15 OF NADAPURAM POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT) BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.S.SREEJITH THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23-12-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
mbr/
P.BHAVADASAN, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A. No. 8021 of 2015 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 23rd day of December, 2015
O R D E R
Petitioners are accused Nos. 6, 5 and 7 in Crime No.96/2015 of Nadapuram Police Station though they are shown as accused Nos. 2, 3 and 5 in the petition. 2.
The petitioners would say that they are innocent and they have not committed any act as alleged and they have been falsely implicated. Further inspiration is drawn from the fact that initially, five accused were arrayed. Except for the first accused, others names now included were not there at the initial stage. Later on, the accused were substituted and new accused were introduced and the petitioners figure therein.
3.
The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the petition and pointed out that it was an intentional attack using dangerous weapons and the wound certificate will speak for themselves.
B.A. No. 8021 of 2015 -24.
After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor and after having perused the records, considering the nature of allegations against the petitioners and the nature of injuries caused and the nature of weapons used, it is felt that it is not an appropriate case where the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court needs to be exercised in favour of the petitioners.
However, if so advised, petitioners may surrender before the Investigating Officer on or before 11.01.2016 who after interrogation, shall produce them before the JFCM Court concerned. If the petitioners move an application for bail before the said court, the learned Magistrate shall consider and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law, preferably on the date of surrender itself. P.BHAVADASAN JUDGE ds