Allowed

Raveendran v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC10 Jan 2013Bail Appl./12/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Sections 294(b), 506(i), 323 and 302 IPC, the Court allowed the application of the accused charged with causing death, holding that since a portion of the investigation was completed and no fear of absconding was expressed, continued custody was unnecessary subject to stringent conditions.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail subject to execution of bond with sureties, surrender of passports, weekly reporting, and restrictions on movement and tampering with evidence.

Raveendran Vs State of Kerala — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY 2013/20TH POUSHA 1934 Bail Appl..No. 12 of 2013 () ---------------------------CRMP.3536/2012 of D.C. & SESSIONS COURT,KOLLAM IN CRIME NO.1264/2012 OF KOLLAM WEST POLICE STATION

¶5

ACCUSED(S)/ACCUSED NO.1 TO 4:

¶6

1. RAVEENDRAN, AGED 41 YEARS

¶7

S/O.SANKARA PILLAI, CHARUVILA PUTHEN VEETIL

¶8

CHAKKUVARACKAL VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA TALUK, KOLLAM.

¶9

2. JAMES, AGED 56 YEARS

¶10

S/O.FRANCIS, MOOTHELIL VEETTIL, KOTTAVELLOOR VILLAGE

¶11

MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶12

3. USHANTH, AGED 26 YEARS

¶13

S/O.UNNIKRISHNAN, KUNNIL VEETTIL, PALLITHODU DESAM

¶14

KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶15

4. VINU, AGED 41 YEARS

¶16

S/O.KUNJUNNI, PADDIYALA VADAKKATHIL VEETTIL THIRUMUCODU DESAM, OTTAPPALAM TALUK

¶17

PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶18

BY ADVS.SRI.S.RAJEEV SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN

¶19

COMPLAINANT(S)/STATE: ---------------------

¶20

STATE OF KERALA REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM-682031 (CRIME NO.1264/2012 OF KOLLAM WEST POLICE STATION KOLLAM DISTRICT).

¶21

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C. RASHEED

¶22

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10-01-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

¶24

P.BHAVADASAN, J.

¶25

---------------------------------------------------BA No.12 of 2013 ---------------------------------------------------Dated this the 10^th day of January 2013

¶26

Order

¶27

The petitioners stand accused of having committed the offences punishable under Ss.294(b), 506(i), 323, 302 r/w S.34 IPC. One Shibu along with Rajendran Pillai, the deceased, went to a bar hotel and according to the petitioners, they demanded liquor on credit. That was not possible and therefore, they went out. Later, according to the prosecution allegation, Rajendran Pillai was found lying on the road and Shibu had taken him to hospital. It appears that Rajendran Pillai succumbed to the injuries sustained by him and initially, a crime under S.174 Cr.PC was registered based on the information given by Shibu. During investigation, it was revealed that from the bar, the deceased was taken out by the petitioners and he was pushed by them, as a result of which he had a fall by which he suffered the injuries which resulted in his death. Therefore, the petitioners were arrayed as accused in the case.

¶28

BA 12/13 2

¶29

The petitioners would say that they are totally innocent and have been implicated with ulterior motives. According to the petitioners, there is no justification for Shibu to give wrong information of the incident. Even assuming the prosecution allegation is true, the offence under S.302 cannot be attracted. At any rate, they have been in custody from 12.12.2012 and a good part of the investigation must have been completed by now. So, their continued custody is unnecessary. They, therefore, seek bail.

¶30

The learned Public Prosecutor very vehemently opposed the application and pointed out that the offences alleged are very serious and grave in nature and in order to wipe out the evidence, they have deleted the video records in the camera mounted in the hotel.

¶31

The petitioners are admittedly, employees of the bar hotel and the deceased along with one Shibu, is alleged to have come to the hotel to consume liquor. According to the prosecution allegation, a quarrel ensued in the bar and the petitioners are said to have taken Rajendran Pialli out of the bar and pushed him. He fell on the ground and sustained injuries

¶32

BA 12/13 3

¶33

on his head which ultimately resulted in his death. Whether S.302 IPC is attracted to the facts of the case or not, is not a matter for consideration at this point of time. Since the petitioners have been in custody since 12.12.2012, a good part of the investigation must have been completed by now. Since no apprehension is expressed by the Investigating Agency that the petitioners are likely to abscond if released on bail, it is felt that the continued custody of the petitioners is unnecessary. The application is accordingly allowed subject to the following conditions :

¶34

The petitioners shall be released on bail, on each of them executing a bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the JFCM-II, Kollam.

¶35

The learned Magistrate shall ensure the identity of the sureties and the veracity of the tax receipts produced by the sureties, before granting bail to the petitioners.

¶36

The petitioners shall surrender their passports before the JFCM concerned. If they are not having valid passports, they shall file affidavits to that effect.

¶37

BA 12/13

¶38

¶39

The petitioners shall not leave the State of Kerala without getting prior permission from the JFCM concerned.

¶40

The petitioners shall report before the Investigating Officer on every Wednesday between 9 am and 10 am, till final report is filed.

¶41

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

¶42

If any of the conditions is violated, the bail granted shall stand cancelled and the JFCM concerned on being satisfied of the said fact, may take such action as available to him in law.

¶43

P.Bhavadasan, Judge

¶44

sta

¶45

BA 12/13 5

Raveendran v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raveendran 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

Fadhil Ahammed Vs State of Kerala

Faizal Vs State of Kerala

Geetha Vs State of Kerala

Paul Durai Vs State of Kerala

Leela @ Kunja Vs the State of Kerala

Albert Antony @ Kunjan Shaiju Vs State of Kerala