Partly allowed

Sameesh M.S v. State

Kerala HC11 Dec 2012Bail Appl./8674/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single judge granted interim bail to five petitioners accused of attacking a complainant and using a walking stick as a weapon under Section 27 of the Arms Act and IPC, dismissing the relief sought for two petitioners not properly arrayed. Conditions for surrender and surety were imposed.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted to petitioners 1, 3, 4, 6, 7 to surrender and execute bond; petition dismissed for petitioners 2 and 5.

Sameesh M.S Vs State — 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

TUESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2012/20TH AGRAHAYANA 1934

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 8674 of 2012 (D)

¶6

------------------------------------------[CR. NO.960/2012 OF ENATH POLICE STATION, ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT]

¶7

PETITIONERS:

¶8

1. SAMEESH .M.S, AGED 29 YEARS, S/O.MOHANAN PILLAI, KADUVINAL KIZHAKKETHIL, MANNADY P.O.,PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶9

2. ANANDUKRISHNAN, AGED 21 YEARS, S/O.RADHAKRISHNA PILLAI, ARAPPURAVILA VEEDU, MANNADY P.O.,PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶10

3. JAYAPRAKASH .C, AGED 29 YEARS, S/O.CHANDRASEKHARAN NAIR, PRAKASH BHAVAN, MANNADY P.O.,PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶11

4. SANDEEP S.NAIR, AGED 20 YEARS, S/O.SURENDRAN NAIR, KURAMPALA HOUSE, MANNADY P.O, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶12

5. MAHESH KUMAR, AGED 27 YEARS, S/O.MADHUSOODHANAN PILLAI, ELAVANNU KUZHIYIL HOUSE,

¶13

MANNADY.P.O, PATHANTMHITA DISTRICT.

¶14

6. AKHIL.V, AGED 28 YEARS, S/O.VIKRAMAN PILLAI, PARAVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, MANNADY P.O..,PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶15

7. AKSHAY MOHAN, AGED 22 YEARS, S/O.CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR, THYPLASSERIL HOUSE, MANNADY P.O.,PATHANAMTHITA DISTRICT.

¶16

BY ADVS.SRI.C.B.SREEKUMAR, SRI.K.K.SETHUKUMAR.

¶17

RESPONDENT:

¶18

STATE, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ENATH POLICE STATION, (CR NO 960 OF 2012 OF ENATH POLICE STATION, ADOOR).

¶19

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. V.S. SREEJITH.

¶20

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11-12-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

Prv.

¶22

P.BHAVADASAN, J.

¶23

B.A. No.8674 of 2012

¶24

Dated this the 11^th day of December, 2012

¶25

O R D E R

¶26

The petitioners 6, 7, 4, 1 and 3 are arrayed as accused 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 in Crime No.960/2012 of Enath Police Station, Adoor. They are alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Section of IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioners would point out that the petitioners are falsely implicated with ulterior motive and they are innocent. It is also pointed out that Section 27 of the Arms Act is deliberately included to see that the petitioners are not granted bail.

¶28

Learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submitted that the petitioners 2 and 5 are not on the party array and no relief can be granted to them. As far as other petitioners are concerned, they attacked the defacto complainant and caused injuries to him with a walking stick. It is also pointed out that the investigation is at an infant stage.

¶29

After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor and after having perused the records, it seems to be that there is some force in the contention of the petitioners that, Section 27 of the Arms Act is included to not grant bail. The weapon alleged to have used is

¶30

B.A.No.8674/2012 :2:

¶31

a walking stick. Having considered the nature of allegations against the petitioners, the nature of injuries suffered by the victim and such other facts, it is felt that this is a fit case to exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction in favour of the petitioners 1, 3, 4, 6 and 7. The petition is disposed of as follows:

¶32

(1) The petition shall stand dismissed as far as the 2^nd and 5^th petitioners are concerned.

¶33

(2) The petitioners 1, 3, 4, 6 and 7 shall surrender before the Investigating Officer on or before 18.12.2012, who after interrogation shall produce them before the JFCM concerned which court on application for bail being moved by the petitioners shall release them on bail on each of them executing a bond for Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the JFCM concerned.

¶34

(3) The learned Magistrate shall ensure the identity of the sureties and the veracity of the tax receipts, before granting bail.

¶35

(4) The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation as and when required.

¶36

(5) The petitioners shall not tamper or attempt to tamper with the evidence and influence or try to influence the witnesses.

¶37

(6) If any of the condition is violated, the bail granted shall stand cancelled and the learned JFCM concerned, of being satisfied of the said fact, may take such proceedings as are available to him in law.

¶38

P.BHAVADASAN, Judge.

¶39

okb.

Sameesh M.S v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sameesh M.S v. State

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

Girija Kumari Vs State of Kerala

Ratheesh Ravi Vs State of Kerala

Shafi Vs State of Kerala

Satheesh Krishnan Vs State of Kerala

Jolly Vs State of Kerala

Sreekumaran Thampi G. Vs State of Kerala