Allowed

Kavilal v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC17 Aug 2009Bail Appl./3527/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala granted anticipatory bail to four accused persons charged with offenses under the IPC and Arms Act. The court was satisfied by the production of a treatment certificate indicating the victim's injuries resulted from a road traffic accident, meeting the prima facie defense contention.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail allowed on execution of bond of Rs. 25,000 each with two solvable sureties.

Kavilal Vs State of Kerala — Anticipatory Bail | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 17TH AUGUST 2009 / 26TH SRAVANA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 3527 of 2009() ----------------------------CRIME NO.196/2009 OF EZHUKONE POLICE STATION

¶2

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED A1 TO 4 ----------------------------------------------1. KAVILAL, AGED 24 YEARS, S/O.KARTHIKEYAN, KAVITHA BHAVAN, KOCHANJILIMOODU MURI, EZHUKONE VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶3

KAVIJU, AGED 29 YEARS, S/O.KARTHIKEYAN, KAVITHA BHAVAN, KOCHANJILIMOODU MURI, EZHUKONE VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶4

SANTHOSH, AGED 22 YEARS, S/O.BALAN, KUZHIVILA VEEDU, KOCHANJILIMOODU MURI, EZHUKONE VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶5

SHEFIQUE, AGED 22 YEARS, S/O.MAJEED KUTTY, PARAKKADAVUMELATHIL VEEDU, PUTHUSSERIKONAM MURI, EZHUKONE VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶6

BY ADV. SRI.K.V.ANIL KUMAR

¶7

RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT

¶8

¶9

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶10

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.TEKCHAND

¶11

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶12

K.T.SANKARAN, J.

¶13

B.A.No.3527 of 2009

¶14

Dated this the 17^th day of August, 2009

¶15

ORDER

¶16

This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 4 in Crime No.196 of 2009 of Ezhukone Police Station.

¶17

The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 447, 294(b), 323 and 324 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

¶18

The de facto complainant is one Sunil. The date of incident was on 29.3.2009. The crime was registered on 31.3.2009. The First Information Statement was recorded from the Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram.

¶19

When the Bail Application came up for hearing on 29^th July 2009, the following directions were issued.

¶20

“4. The specific case of the petitioners is that the de facto complainant sustained injuries in a road traffic accident. The CD file does not show the wound certificate. On 13.5.2009, the Sub Inspector

¶21

BA No.3527/2009

¶22

¶23

of Police, Ezhukone has sent a letter to the Superintendent of the Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram, requesting to issue treatment certificate. The treatment certificate is not seen in the file. The photocopy of a discharge card is seen at page Nos.25 and 26 of the CD file. The discharge card shows that Sunil Ezhukone is the patient. He was referred from the General Hospital, Kollam to the Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram. It is also recorded in that discharge card as follows: “alleged C/O RTA”. According to the counsel for the petitioners, this would indicate that it is a case of road traffic accident.

¶24

Learned public prosecutor will get correct instructions as to the injuries sustained and the treatment furnished to the de facto complainant and also as to whether the de facto complainant was admitted in the hospital on account of a road traffic accident. Post on 17.8.2009.”

¶25

Today when the case was taken up, the learned public prosecutor produced before the me the treatment certificate of the de facto complainant in which it is seen that the de facto complainant was referred from the General Hospital, Kollam and that the case involved is a road traffic accident. Prima facie, the contention of the petitioners appears to be probable.

¶26

Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the offence and other circumstances, I am of the view that anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioners.

¶27

There will be a direction that in the event of the arrest of

¶28

BA No.3527/2009

¶29

¶30

the petitioners, the officer in charge of the police station shall release them on bail on their executing bond for Rs.25,000/each with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the officer concerned, subject to the following conditions:

¶31

a) The petitioners shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required;

¶32

b) The petitioners shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence;

¶33

c) The petitioners shall not commit any offence or indulge in any prejudicial activity while on bail;

¶34

d) In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, the bail shall be liable to be cancelled.

¶35

The Bail Application is allowed to the extent indicated above.

¶36

K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE

¶37

csl

Kavilal v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kavilal 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

Krishnakumar Vs State of Kerala

G.Rajendrababu Vs State of Kerala

Rajani Vs State of Kerala

K.P.Ismail Vs State of Kerala, (Sho Edacherry P.S.)

Pambady Chandu Vs State of Kerala

Kizhakke Veettil Abdul Azeez and Another Vs State of Kerala