Dismissed

Paresh K.V. and Others v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC16 Jun 2010Bail Appl./2628/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A bail application seeking anticipatory relief was filed by accused persons in a criminal case involving assault, house trespass, and mischief. The High Court of Kerala held that the allegations were of a serious nature and dismissed the petition, finding no fit case for anticipatory bail.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail was refused and the petition was dismissed.

Paresh K.V. and Others Vs State of Kerala — Anticipatory Bail | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA

¶4

MONDAY, THE 17TH MAY 2010 / 27TH VAISAKHA 1932

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 2628 of 2010()

¶6

----------------------------CRIME NO.186/10 OF AROOR POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA.

¶7

(S): PETITIONERS/ACCUSED.

¶8

¶9

PARESH K.V., S/O. VELAYUDHAN, AGED 25 YEARS, KULATHATTUNIVARTH, KAKKATHURUTH, AROOR P.O., CHERTHALA.

¶10

RAJESH R.V., S/O. VELAYUDHAN, AGED 26 YEARS, RAJESH BHAVANAM, KAKKATHURUTH, AROOR P.O., CHERTHALA.

¶11

SURESH M.S., S/O. SANKARAN, AGED 28 YEARS, KIRAN BHAVANAM, KAKKATHURUTH, AROOR, CHERTHALA.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.P.T.JOSE

¶13

RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT.

¶14

¶15

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

¶16

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ.

¶17

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/06/2010 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

K.HEMA, J.

¶19

---------------------------------------------Bail Application No.2628 of 2010

¶20

Dated 16^th June, 2010.

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

This petition is for anticipatory bail.

¶23

The alleged offences are under Sections 452, 323, 324 and 427 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, petitioners, who are accused nos.3, 2 and 1, along with other accused, in furtherance of common intention committed house trespass, after making preparation for commission of the offences, into the house of defacto complainant and assaulted defacto complainant's son-in-law by using iron rod and also committed mischief by destroying the household articles, window glass etc. The incident happened on 22.3.2010 at about 11.30 p.m.

¶24

Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that this is a fabricated case. There was a scuffle between first accused's brother and son of defacto complainant. The defacto complainant's son left the place after the incident. Thereafter, on 24.3.2010, a complaint is lodged, stating that petitioners have committed the offences. There is a delay of two days in lodging

¶25

BA NO.2628/10

¶26

¶27

the complaint. No injury is caused to any person in the incident.

¶28

4^th accused is already released on bail, after 3 days of custody.

¶29

Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that as per the allegations made, defacto complainant's son-in-law was assaulted by using iron rod. Household articles are also destroyed.

¶30

On hearing both sides and considering the serious nature of the allegations made, I am not satisfied that this is a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Though it is submitted that there was a scuffle between two parties and this is a fabricated case, I find that there is only a bare assertion. I also find it difficult to believe at this stage that this is a falsely foisted case.

¶31

This petition is dismissed.

¶32

K.HEMA, JUDGE.

¶33

tgs

Paresh K.V. and Others v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Paresh K.V. and Others 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

Krishna Kumar Vs State of Kerala, Rep. by Public Prosecut

Santhosh and Others Vs State of Kerala

Nishar Vs State of Kerala

Ziad and Another Vs State of Kerala

Pavithran Vs State of Kerala

Vijayakumar Vs State of Kerala