Allowed

Aneesh v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC4 May 2010Bail Appl./2339/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala granted bail to two accused persons charged with mischief and assault in a temple incident. The court observed the existence of a counter case against the complainant and the non-severe injury sustained, favoring bail release on strict conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; bail granted on bond of Rs. 25,000 with two solvers on conditions to appear on Mondays/Fridays and not tamper with evidence.

Aneesh Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 4TH MAY 2010 / 14TH VAISAKHA 1932

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 2339 of 2010()

¶6

CMP.726/2010 of D.C. & SESSIONS COURT,KOLLAM CRIME NO.299/2010 of Eravipuram Police Station, Kollam District

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 AND 2 :-

¶8

----------------------------------------------

¶9

1. ANEESH, AGED 23, S/O. BABU, KALLUTHODIYIL VEEDU, KALLARAMTHODU, MAYYANADU VILLAGE, KOLLAM.

¶10

2. UMESH, AGED 23, S/O. THANKAPPAN, VAYALIVEEDU, KAITHAPUZHA, MAYYANADUCHERI, MAYYANADU VILLAGE, KOLLAM.

¶11

BY ADV. MR.AJAYA KUMAR. G

¶12

RESPONDENT(S) :-

¶13

-------------------------

¶14

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

¶15

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.S.U.NAZAR

¶16

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

JVT

¶18

P.Q. BARKATH ALI, J.

¶19

================

¶20

B.A. No.2339 of 2010

¶21

================ Dated this the 4^th day of May, 2010

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

This is a bail application filed by the accused 1 and 2 in Crime No.299 of 2010 of Eravipuram Police Station in

¶24

Kollam District.

¶25

The allegation against the petitioners is that they along with six other persons have formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and committed mischief in the temple by destroying various articles of the temple and attacked the de facto complainant and his men and thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 324 308 r/w Section 149 of IPC. The petitioners were arrested on 19.3.2010 and they are in remand thereafter. The learned Sessions Judge, Kollam rejected their bail applications.

¶26

It is alleged in the petition that the petitioners are innocent of the offence alleged against them and that they

¶27

B.A. No.2339 of 2010

¶28

-2-

¶29

were attacked by the de facto complainant and his men for which, the police has charged the case as crime No.300/10, and that the accused have also sustained injuries in the incident.

¶30

Notice given to the learned Public Prosecutor. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶31

For the following reasons, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioners. The petitioners are in remand from 19.3.2010 onwards. Further, there is a counter case against the de facto complainant and his men as crime No.300/10 of Eravipuram Police Station for having attacked the petitioner. That apart, the injuries sustained by the de facto complainant are not severe. Having regarding to all these aspects and in the circumstances of the case, I feel that the petitioners can be released on bail subject to strict conditions.

¶32

B.A. No.2339 of 2010

¶33

-3-

¶34

In the result, the petition is allowed. The petitioners

¶35

shall be executing a bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) each with two solvent sureties for like sum each to the satisfaction of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court – II, Kollam on the following conditions:-

¶36

1. The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Mondays and Fridays at 10 A.M.

¶37

1. The petitioners shall not commit similar offence while on bail.

¶38

1. The petitioners shall co-operate with the investigation and shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence.

¶39

In case of violation of any of the aforesaid conditions,

¶40

the lower court can cancel his bail.

¶41

P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JUDGE.

¶42

jvt

¶43

B.A. No.2339 of 2010

¶44

-4-

Aneesh v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aneesh 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shaji Thomas Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Khader Vs the Forest Range Officer Kasaragod

Shameer Vs State of Kerala

Jubariya Beevi Vs State of Kerala

Aneesh Vs State of Kerala

Ijas Vs State of Kerala