Allowed

Suresh Raju v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC7 Mar 2008Bail Appl./1085/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed an application for anticipatory bail. The court found merit in the petitioners' apprehension of arrest due to the police's failure to file a charge sheet despite filing an application. Bail was granted subject to conditions for surrender and interrogation.

What did the court decide?

Directions issued for surrender on 14.3.2008, execution of bonds of Rs.25,000 each with two sureties, and availability for interrogation for a month.

Suresh Raju Vs State of Kerala — Anticipatory Bail | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 7TH MARCH 2008 / 17TH PHALGUNA 1929

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 1085 of 2008()

¶6

----------------------------CRIME NO. 142/08 OF THODUPUZHA POLICE STATION CRMP.622/2008 of DISTRICT COURT, THODUPUZHA ....................

¶7

PETITIONERS

¶8

¶9

SURESH RAJU, S/O.P.K.RAJU, PUTHENVEETTIL HOUSE, KOLANI P.O., THODUPUZHA.

¶10

NOJ.P.JOSE, S/O.P.U.JOSE, PALAKKATTU HOUSE, ARIKKUZHA P.O., MANNAKKADU VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK.

¶11

C.R.PRASANTH, S/O.RAMACHANDRAN, CHERUPURATH HOUSE, MANAKKAD P.O., MANAKKAD VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.P.K.SOYUZ

¶13

RESPONDENTS:

¶14

¶15

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, (CRIME NO.142 OF 2008 OF THODUPUZHA POLICE STATION).

¶16

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. JAI GEORGE

¶17

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

R. BASANT, J.

¶19

- - - - B.A.No. 1085 of 2008

¶20

¶21

Dated this the 7th day of March, 2008

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioners are accused 5 to 7. Altogether, the F.I.R. shows that, there were 15 accused persons four named and 11 others. The F.I.R. is registered alleging commission of the offences punishable under Section 353 r/w. 149 I.P.C. and Section 3 of the PDPP Act. The

¶24

crux of the allegations is that the accused persons, who were members of an unlawfully assembly, had indulged in acts of violence and mischief against police officials charged with responsibility to maintain law and order situation. They had allegedly assaulted the police officials showering abuses and deterred them from discharging the official duty. Damage was caused to the police vehicle that had come to the scene. The incident took place on 31.1.2008. The petitioners are not named in the F.I.R. To the best of the knowledge of the petitioners they have not been arrayed as accused also. They are hence unable to

¶25

B.A.No. 1085 of 2008

¶26

¶27

surrender before the Magistrate and seek regular bail. They have hence come to this Court with a prayer that directions under Section 438 Cr.P.C. may be issued in their favour.

¶28

It is the case of the petitioners that they are absolutely innocent and political reasons have prompted the police to falsely make allegations against the petitioners.

¶29

Notice was given to the learned Prosecutor. The learned counsel for the petitioners repeatedly asserted on all the dates of posting that the petitioners have not been arrayed as accused. The learned Prosecutor asserted that the petitioners have been arrayed as accused. But the learned counsel has made available document to show that no report arraying the petitioners as accused has been filed before the learned Magistrate. The learned counsel submits that this is a ploy to ensure that the petitioners are not able to surrender before the Magistrate and seek regular bail. With malafide and oblique motives, they are not formally brought on the array of accused with the intention of arresting them and getting them into police custody.

¶30

¶31

B.A.No. 1085 of 2008

¶32

The learned Prosecutor even today asserts that the report has

¶33

been dispatched from the police station on 25.2.2008, but he is unable to assert that such report has been received by the Magistrate. The learned counsel for the petitioners produced materials to show that a copy of the application filed for the report has been returned with the endorsement that no such report has been filed. Taking the totality of circumstances into account, I find merit in the apprehension aired by the petitioners. I am satisfied that the petitioners can be granted anticipatory bail, subject to appropriate conditions.

¶34

In the result:

¶35

(1) This application is allowed.

¶36

(2) The following directions are issued under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶37

(a) The petitioners shall surrender before the learned Magistrate on 14.3.2008 at 11 a.m. The learned Magistrate shall release the petitioners on regular bail on condition that they execute bonds for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) each with two

¶38

B.A.No. 1085 of 2008

¶39

¶40

solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate.

¶41

(b) The petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation before the Investigating Officer between 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. on 15.3.08 and 17.3.2008. During this period, the investigators shall be at liberty to interrogate the petitioners in custody and take all necessary steps in connection with the investigation. Thereafter they shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Mondays and Fridays between 10 a.m. and 12 noon for a period of one month and subsequently as and when directed by the Investigating Officer in writing to do so.

¶42

(d) If the petitioners do not appear before the learned Magistrate as directed in clause (1) above, these directions shall lapse on 14.3.2008 and the police shall be at liberty thereafter to arrest the petitioners and deal with them in accordance with law.

¶43

(b) If the petitioners were arrested prior to their surrender on 14.3.2008 as directed in clause (1) above, they shall be released on

¶44

B.A.No. 1085 of 2008

¶45

¶46

bail on their executing bonds for Rs.25,000/- each without any surety

¶47

undertaking to appear before the learned Magistrate on 14.3.2008.

¶48

(R. BASANT) Judge

¶49

Suresh Raju v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh Raju v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manoj and 2 Others Vs State of Kerala and Another

Das Vs State of Kerala

Ramesh @ Pappu Vs State of Kerala

Icici Bank Ltd. Vs the R.T.O.

Manaf Vs Station House Officer

Omana Vs State of Kerala