Allowed

K.M.Rishal @ Shalu v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC19 Mar 2013Bail Appl./2037/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court granted bail to the second accused, K.M. Rishal, charged with offences under multiple sections of the IPC including affray and outrage of modesty. The court held that the non-arrest of other accused does not justify keeping him in custody and allowed bail on bond with reporting conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail on a bond of Rs. 25,000 with two solvent sureties, required to report weekly and not tamper with evidence.

K.M.Rishal @ Shalu Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH 2013/28TH PHALGUNA 1934

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 2037 of 2013 ()

¶6

(CRIME NO. 76/2013 OF KASARAGOD POLICE STATION , KASARGOD DIST.)

¶7

PETITIONER/2ND ACCUSED:

¶8

K.M.RISHAL @ SHALU, AGED 22 YEARS S/O.ABDUL KHADER, 20/13, K.M.A.HOUSE BEACH ROAD, BANGARAKUNNU, NELLIKUNNU KASARAGOD.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE SRI.M.A.MOHAMMED SIRAJ SRI.P.PRIJITH SRI.THOMAS P.KURUVILLA

¶10

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶11

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

¶12

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.R.REMA

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19-03-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

¶15

P.BHAVADASAN, J.

¶16

Bail Application No.2037 OF 2013 --------------------------------------Dated this the 19^th day of March, 2013.

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

The petitioner is 2^nd accused in Crime No.76/2013 of Kasaragod Police Station who is alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 452, 341, 324, 354, 153(A) read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The incident which gave rise to the case occurred on 27.01.2013 at about 6 p.m. The allegation against the petitioner and others is that they trespassed into the house of the de facto complainant, assaulted her and also tried to outrage her modesty.

¶19

The petitioner would say that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated with ulterior motive. It is pointed out that in another case he was arrested on 17.02.2013 and was enlarged on bail on 18.02.2013 on condition that he should appear before the investigating officer on all Mondays. In compliance with the

¶20

said condition, he was constantly reporting before the

¶21

B.A. No.2037/2013

¶22

¶23

investigating officer and on 25.02.2013 when he went to report as usual, he was arrested in connection with the present crime.

¶24

The petitioner says that no offence as alleged is committed by him and his continued custody is unnecessary.

¶25

Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the petition and pointed out that the petitioner has criminal antecedent and he is accused of having committed an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. It is submitted that the other accused have not been apprehended and as the petitioner has criminal antecedent, he may not be granted bail.

¶26

After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Public Prosecutor and after having perused the Case Diary, the claim of the petitioner that he is totally innocent may not be acceptable. How far the petitioner is involved in the matter and whether the allegations against the petitioner are true or not are not matters to be gone into at this point of time. The petitioner has been in custody from 27.02.2013 and a good part of the investigation seems to have been completed. The mere fact that the other accused have not been apprehended is

¶27

B.A. No.2037/2013

¶28

¶29

not a reason to keep the petitioner in custody.

¶30

Since no apprehension is expressed by the investigating

¶31

agency that if released on bail, the petitioner is likely to abscond, the continued custody of the petitioner appears to be unnecessary. The application is allowed on the following conditions:

¶32

i) The petitioner shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kasaragod.

¶33

ii) The learned Magistrate shall ensure the identity of the sureties and also the veracity of the tax receipts produced by him.

¶34

iii) The petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer on every Wednesday between 9 a.m and 10 a.m until further orders.

¶35

iv) The petitioner shall not tamper or attempt to tamper with the evidence or influence or try to influence the witness.

¶36

v) If any of the condition is violated, the bail granted

¶37

B.A. No.2037/2013

¶38

¶39

shall stand cancelled and the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kasaragod, on being satisfied of the said fact, may take such steps as are available to him in law.

¶40

P.BHAVADASAN JUDGE

¶41

smp

K.M.Rishal @ Shalu v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.M.Rishal @ Shalu 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

Mohana Kurup Vs Sub Inspector of Police

Babu E.D @ Binu Vs State of Kerala

Laju Vs State of Kerala

Reena Joseph Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Mohammed Vs State of Kerala

Shaji Vs State of Kerala