A Will That Silences Legal Heirs Without Cause Cannot Speak the Truth of the Testator’s Intent: Orissa High Court Rejects Solemnity of Registered Will Conviction Can Be Set Aside Even in Non-Compoundable Offences If Parties Settle: Punjab & Haryana High Court Affirms Inherent Power under Section 482 CrPC Mere Absence of Ticket or Station Report Not Fatal to Claim: Bombay High Court Says Railway Claims Can Be Proved by Circumstantial Evidence Judgment of Acquittal Cannot Be Reversed Merely Because A Different View Is Possible, Unless It’s Perverse Or Ignores Material Evidence: Himachal High Court Courts Cannot Reopen Admissions Once Deadline Expires: Orissa High Court Rejects SEBC Nursing Aspirants' Plea Filed Post Cut-Off A Sketchy Allegation of Corrupt Practice Can’t Be Cured Later Through Amendment: Bombay High Court Rejects Election Petition Against Shiv Sena MLA Delay in FIR, If Plausibly Explained, Cannot Vitiate Claim: Madras High Court Enhances Compensation to ₹3.26 Crores for Fatal Accident Involving Pillion Rider Failure to Videograph Search Violates BNSS: Allahabad High Court Grants Bail, Slams Police for Ignoring Procedural Mandates No Customs Duty Without Clear Authority Of Law: Supreme Court Quashes Levy On SEZ Electricity Supplied To Domestic Tariff Area Owner's Admission Cannot Be Brushed Aside to Deny Compensation: Supreme Court Reinstates ₹3.7 Lakh Award to Family of Deceased Driver Benefit Of Doubt Must Prevail Where Eyewitness Testimony Is Infirm And Contradict Medical Evidence: Supreme Court Acquits Double-Murder Convict A Mere Error in Bail Orders Cannot Tarnish a Judge’s Career: Supreme Court Quashes Dismissal of Judicial Officer for Granting Bail under Excise Act Order 1 Rule 10 CPC | A Necessary Party is One Without Whom No Order Can Be Made Effectively: Supreme Court Readiness and Willingness Must Be Proven—Mere Pleading Is Not Enough For Specific Performance: Supreme Court Returning Expired Stamp Papers Is No Refund in Law: Supreme Court Directs State to Pay ₹3.99 Lakhs Despite Limitation under UP Stamp Rules Supreme Court Distinguishes ‘Masterminds’ from ‘Facilitators’: Bail Denied to Umar Khalid & Sharjeel Imam, Granted to Gulfisha Fatima & Others: Supreme Court Jurisdiction of Small Causes Court Under Section 41 Does Not Extinguish Arbitration Clause in Leave and License Agreements: Supreme Court Arbitration Act | Unilateral Appointment Void Ab Initio; Participation in Proceedings Does Not Constitute Waiver: Supreme Court Section 21 Arbitration Act Is Not a Gatekeeper of Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Restores ₹2 Crore Arbitral Award Against Kerala Government

Not a Fit Case to Grant Anticipatory Bail: Kerala High Court in High-Profile Abduction and Murder Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling today, the Kerala High Court, presided over by Justice Mohammed Nias C.P., denied anticipatory bail to Abdul Razaq @ Arikady Razaq in connection with two serious crimes involving allegations of abduction, assault, and murder. The court, in its rigorous assessment of the case, stated, “I do not think that this is a fit case to grant anticipatory bail,” emphasizing the gravity of the offenses and the need for an unimpeded investigation.

The two cases, registered as Crime Nos. 490/2022 and 493/2022 at Manjeswar Police Station, Kasargod, involve severe allegations against the petitioner. In one instance, the charges include abduction and assault, leading to severe bodily harm, while the other involves the murder of a person named Aboobacker Siddique, as alleged in the F.I.R.

During the hearing, the defense argued a lack of direct evidence connecting Razaq to the crimes, asserting that mere mention of his presence was insufficient for a connection to the alleged offenses. However, the prosecution presented a compelling case, highlighting the petitioner’s alleged role in planning and executing these heinous acts. The PostMortem Report of the deceased victim, revealing traumatic brain injury and internal bleeding due to multiple blunt injuries, bolstered the prosecution’s stance.

Justice Nias, in his ruling, underscored the serious nature of the allegations and the petitioner’s key role, stating, “Considering the key role played by the petitioner in a grave crime, I am of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to get anticipatory bail as it might adversely affect a proper investigation.” The judgment reflects the court’s commitment to ensuring that the investigation into these grave allegations is conducted thoroughly and without interference.

Date of Decision: 12th December 2023

ABDUL RAZAQ @ ARIKADY RAZAQ VS STATE OF KERALA

 

Latest Legal News