Shareef Ahamed M. vs The State Of Kerala on 24 June, 2010

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl..No. 2718 of 2010()


1. SHAREEF AHAMED M., S/O.AHAMEDKUTTY
                      ...  Petitioner
2. ANAS M., S/O.AHAMEDKUTTY VAIDYAR,
3. SAIDU M., S/O.ALIKUTTY,
4. SHEFI T.P., MANGAT HOUSE,
5. ADEEB MOHAMED M., S/O.MOHAMED MOULAVI M.
6. FAZIL K.P., S/O.ABDUL JABBAR,
7. T.P.SHAHIS, S/O.KUTTIYAMU,
8. ABDUL WARIS M., S/O.ABDUL RAZAK,
9. ABDUL HAZEEB M., S/O.HASSAN KUTTY,
10. SADIQ ALI, S/O.MOIDEENKOYA,
11. SAHAD K., S/O.SAIDALAVI, KONNOLA HOUSE,
12. AHAMMED KOYA, S/O.MOHAMMED,
13. SAIDALI M., AGED 48 YEARS,
14. ANSAR M., S/O.SAIDALI M.,
15. ABDU RAHIMAN C., S/O.MOHAMMED,
16. ASTHAF T.P., S/O.KUTTIYAMU,
17. JABIR K.P., S/O.HASSAINAR,
18. FIROZ M.P., S/O.ABDULLAKUTTY MASTER,
19. K.KUHALAN HAJI, AGED 59 YEARS,
20. HASSANKUTTY M., HUDA HOUSE,
21. T.P.KUNHIMOHAMMED, S/O.IMBICHI BEERAN,
22. NOUSHAD P., S/O.KUTTIYAVA,
23. MOHAMED MOULAVI M., S/O.SAYED MOHAMED,

                        Vs



1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

3. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.M.FIROZ

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA

 Dated :24/06/2010

 O R D E R
                                 K.HEMA, J
                            -----------------------
                        B.A No.2718 OF 2010
                        --------------------------------
                 Dated this the 24th day of June 2010

                                   ORDER

This petition is for anticipatory bail.

2. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that petitioner

numbers 1, 7 and 22 are accused in crime No.80/2010 of

Thenhipalam Police Station. They were arrested in the said crime

and they were released on bail. They are not wanted in any other

crime of Thenhipalam Police Station. So also, none of the other

petitioners are involved in any crime in the said Police Station and

therefore, they are also not required for arrest. These

submissions are recorded. Hence, there is no ground for granting

anticipatory bail, as there can be no apprehension of arrest.

Petition is dismissed.

K.HEMA
JUDGE

vdv