Allowed

Rajagopal and Another v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC14 Oct 2011Bail Appl./6971/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners, husband and wife, accused of assault during an altercation. They were relieved from arrest subject to conditions including regular reporting and cooperating with the investigation.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted on execution of bond for 10,000 with two sureties, subject to conditions of reporting and cooperation with investigation.

Rajagopal and Another Vs State of Kerala — Anticipatory Bail | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 14TH OCTOBER 2011 / 22ND ASWINA 1933

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 6971 of 2011

¶6

CRIME NO.501 OF 2011 OF NADAKKAVU POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE.

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 & 2:

¶8

¶9

RAJAGOPAL, (WRONGLY NAMED AS SAJAN IN FIR), S/O. P.K.GOPINATHA PILLAI, AGED 43 YEARS, KODUVALLYVAYAL, P.O.WEST HILL, KOZHIKODE.

¶10

NISHA, D/O. PUTHENPURAYIL DEVI, W/O. RAJAGOPAL, AGED 39 YEARS, KODUVALLYVAYAL, P.O.WEST HILL, KOZHIKODE.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.K.T.SHYAMKUMAR

¶12

RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT:

¶13

¶14

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

¶15

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.K.RAJEEV

¶16

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

K.T.SANKARAN, J.

¶18

-----------------------------------------------------Bail Appl. NO. 6971 of 2011

¶19

Dated this the 14^th day of October, 2011

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.501 of 2011 of Nadakkavu Police Station, Kozhikode District.

¶22

The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 341 and 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶23

The prosecution case is the following: On 6.8.2011 at 6.30 P.M., while the de facto complainant was walking along the road, the accused persons (husband and wife) came on a motor bike and attacked the de facto complainant with a helmet resulting in a fracture injury to him. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that two civil suits are pending between the de facto complainant and the petitioners and that they are on inimical

¶24

Bail Appl. NO.6971 of 2011

¶25

:: 2 ::

¶26

terms. On 06/08/2011, while the petitioners were riding on a motor bike, they were intercepted by the de facto complainant, who was in a drunken state. A scuffle ensued and the de facto complainant fell down. It is pointed out that the de facto complainant was taken to the hospital only on the next day, i.e., on 07/08/2011 and the F.I.R. was registered only on 10/08/2011.

¶27

When the Bail Application came up for admission on 28^th September, 2011, the following order was passed:

¶28

“4. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of the offences, I am of the view that before considering the question of granting anticipatory bail, the petitioners should be directed to appear before the investigating officer. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the petitioners to appear before the investigating officer on 07/10/2011 and 08/10/2011.

¶29

Post on 12/10/2011.

¶30

It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioners will not be arrested in connection with Crime No.501 of 2011 of Nadakkavu Police Station, till 14/10/2011.

¶31

Bail Appl. NO.6971 of 2011

¶32

:: 3 ::

¶33

The petitioners shall co-operate with the investigating officer in the matter of investigation and for recovery of incriminating materials, if any.

¶34

The petitioners shall produce a copy of this order before the investigating officer.”

¶35

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the direction in the order dated 28^th September, 2011 has been complied with by the petitioners.

¶36

Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the offence and also taking note of the fact that the direction in the order dated 28^th September, 2011 has been complied with by the petitioners, I am of the view that anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioners. There will be a direction that in the event of the arrest of the petitioners, the officer in charge of the police station shall release them on bail on their executing bond for `10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) each with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the officer concerned, subject to the following conditions:

¶37

Bail Appl. NO.6971 of 2011

¶38

:: 4 ::

¶39

a) The petitioners shall report before the investigating officer between 9 A.M. and 11 A.M. on alternate Mondays, till the final report is filed or until further orders;

¶40

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

¶41

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

¶42

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

¶43

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

¶44

The Bail Application is allowed to the extent indicated

¶45

above.

¶46

(K.T.SANKARAN) Judge

¶47

ahz/

Rajagopal and Another v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajagopal and Another 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

Sinimon Vs State of Kerala

K.Vijaya Vs State of Kerala

Jayakumar K.N Vs State of Kerala

Shyam Raj Vs State of Kerala

Santhosh K.Gopalan Vs State of Kerala

Sanoj Vs State of Kerala