Partly allowed

Sarath Mohan & Others v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC23 Nov 2011Bail Appl./7877/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court considered an application for anticipatory bail. Bail was refused to the first accused who caused an injury resulting in a fracture. Bail was granted to the other three accused who allegedly committed lesser acts, subject to four bond conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail allowed for accused Nos. 2 to 4 on their executing bond for `10,000/- each with two solvent sureties for the like amount, subject to specific conditions regarding reporting, interrog

Sarath Mohan & Others Vs the State of Kerala — Cheating and Forgery | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD NOVEMBER 2011 / 2ND AGRAHAYANA 1933

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 7877 of 2011()

¶6

IN CRIME NO.431/2011 OF MANNANCHERRY POLICE STATION

¶7

PETITIONERS(S): /ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 4:

¶8

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

¶9

1. SARATH MOHAN, AGED 28 YEARS, S/O.MOHAN, PUTHENPURACKAL, NORTH ARYAD P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶10

2. AJI, AGED 26 YEARS, S/O.CHANDRAN, PADINJARE VELI, NORTH ARYAD P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶11

3. SUMESH, AGED 31 YEARS, S/O.CHANDRAN, PADINJARE VELI, NORTH ARYAD P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶12

4. SREEKUMAR, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O.GOPI, THEKKE VELI, NORTH ARYAD P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶13

BY ADV. SRI.S.SHANAVAS KHAN

¶14

RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT:

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. R.REMA

¶18

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

¶20

K.T.SANKARAN, J .

¶21

B.A.No. 7877 OF 2011

¶22

Dated this the 23^rd day of November, 2011

¶23

ORDER

¶24

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.431 of 2011 of Mannancherry Police Station, Alappuzha District.

¶25

The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 294(b), 323 and 326 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶26

The prosecution case is that on 4.9.2011, at about 5 P.M, the defacto complainant was attacked by the accused. It is specifically alleged that accused No.1 beat the defacto complainant with a stick, which resulted in the fracture of the shoulder bone of the defacto complainant. On going through the case diary, it is seen that the fracture sustained by the

¶27

B.A.No. 7877 OF 2011 2

¶28

defacto complainant is not attributable to the overt acts done by accused Nos.2 to 4. No weapon was used by accused Nos.2 to 4 and the allegation against them is that they kicked and stamped the defacto complainant.

¶29

Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to accused No.1. The fracture sustained by the defacto complainant is attributable to the overt acts alleged against accused No.1. However, the case of accused Nos.2 to 4 stands on a different footing. The overt acts alleged against them are not attributable to the grievous hurt sustained by the defacto complainant. Accordingly, I am of the view that anticipatory bail can be granted to accused Nos.2 to 4. There will be a direction that in the event of the arrest of accused Nos.2 to 4, 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:

¶30

B.A.No. 7877 OF 2011 3

¶31

A) Accused Nos. 2 to 4 shall report before the investigating officer between 9 A.M. and 11 A.M. on all Mondays, till the final report is filed or until further orders;

¶32

B) Accused Nos. 2 to 4 shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required;

¶33

C) Accused Nos. 2 to 4 shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence.

¶34

D) Accused Nos. 2 to 4 shall not commit any offence or indulge in any prejudicial activity while on bail.

¶35

E) Accused Nos. 2 to 4 shall cooperate with the investigating officer in the matter of investigation.

¶36

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

¶37

The Bail Application is dismissed, in so far as it relates to accused No.1, and it is allowed in the manner indicated above, in so far as it relates to accused Nos.2 to 4.

¶38

K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE .

¶39

cms

Sarath Mohan & Others v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarath Mohan & Others v. the 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

Muhammed Farooq and Others Vs State of Kerala

Akhil R.Ratheesh Vs State of Kerala

Rajan Vs State of Kerala

Maneesh Vs State of Kerala

Prince.v.P Vs State of Kerala

Rajesh Vs State of Kerala