Dismissed

Rahul R v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC5 Dec 2012Bail Appl./8363/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application regarding a clash between college students, the Kerala High Court dismissed the petition. The court held that available call details records refuted the petitioner's claim of absence and that the infant investigation stage precluded granting bail under extraordinary jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed. Petitioner directed to surrender before IO by 13.12.2012 for production before JFCM court for bail application.

Rahul R Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2012/14TH AGRAHAYANA 1934 Bail Appl..No. 8363 of 2012 () -----------------------------(CRIME NO. 1548/2012 OF ERAVIPURAM POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT)

¶5

PETITIONER/4TH ACCUSED : ---------------------

¶6

RAHUL R, AGED 23 YEARS S/O. REGHUNATH, SREEKRISHNA BHAVAN KILIKOLLOR VILLAGE, KOLLAM TALUK, KOLLAM.

¶7

BY ADVS.SRI.BECHU KURIAN THOMAS SMT.TINA ALEX THOMAS

¶8

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT : -------------------------

¶9

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM (THROUGH SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE ERAVIPURAM POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT).

¶10

R BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. RAJESH VIJAYAN

¶11

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05-12-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶12

SCL.

¶13

P. BHAVADASAN, J.

¶14

B.A. No. 8363 of 2012

¶15

Dated this the 5^th day of December, 2012

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

Petitioner is the 4^th accused in Crime No.1548/2012 of Eravipuram Police Station, who is alleged to have committed offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 308 and 149 of IPC.

¶18

The incident which gave rise to the case is said to have occurred on 12.10.2012 at 4.15 p.m. It appears that there was a clash between two group of college students in which the victim suffered injuries.

¶19

The petitioner, who is the fourth accused claimed that he had no role to play in the incident and he has been falsely implicated. He was not at the place of occurrence and he had not participated in the incident.

¶20

Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the petition, pointing out that as per the allegations, the victim was restrained by accused No. 2 to 5, facilitating the first accused to inflict injury.

¶21

The CD was made available for perusal. The claim of

¶22

B.A. No. 8363 of 2012

¶23

¶24

the petitioner that he was not at the place of occurrence and he had no active role to play, cannot be accepted in view of the materials available in the CD. Determination of genuineness and veracity of the allegations do not arise for consideration now.

¶25

Considering the nature of allegation against the petitioner and others, manner in which the offence is committed, the injuries caused by the victim and also the fact that the investigation is at an infant stage, preclude this court from exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner. Petition is accordingly dismissed.

¶26

However, if the petitioner so advised, he may surrender before the investigating officer on or before 13.12.2012, who after interrogation may produce the petitioner before the JFCM court concerned, which court on an application for bail being moved by the petitioner may dispose it of preferably on the same day in accordance with law.

¶27

P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE.

¶28

Scl.

Rahul R v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul R 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

Nissam Vs State of Kerala

Anuroop.K.K. Vs State of Kerala

Ali Akbar Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Bhuvanachandran Vs State of Kerala

Vasavan Vs State of Kerala

Ushakumari Vs State of Kerala