Allowed

Sundaran v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC21 Jan 2013Bail Appl./231/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala, at Ernakulam, granted bail to five accused persons (accused No.3 to 5, 8 and 13) charged with offences under sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 341, 324, 427, 447, 308 IPC read with section 149 IPC. The court allowed bail subject to specific conditions regarding sureties, reporting, and conduct.

What did the court decide?

Accused released on bail on executing a bond of Rs. 25,000 with two solvent sureties, reporting weekly, and not tampering with evidence or witnesses.

Sundaran 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

MONDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY 2013/1ST MAGHA 1934

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 231 of 2013 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 927/2012 OF KUNNAMANGALAM POLICE STATION , KOZHIKODE

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 3 TO 5, 8 & 13

¶8

1. SUNDARAN AGED 60 YEARS S/O. PERACHAN,PALAKKADI HOUSE,CHOOLOOR KOZHIKODE TALUK.

¶9

2. ARUN M.P. AGED 19 YEARS S/O. SUDEVAN MUNDARAPOYIL HOUSE,CHOOLOOR P.O. POOLAKODE,KOZHIKODE TALUK.

¶10

3. SOORYARAJ @ SOORYAJITH AGED 19 YEARS S/O. ASOKAN,ATHIRAKUZHIYIL HOUSE,CHOOLOOR P.O. POOLAKODE,KOZHIKODE TALUK.

¶11

4. REJIN M. AGED 20 YEARS S/O. ARAVINNDAN,MOTHODIKAYIL HOUSE,CHOOLOOR P.O. POOLAKODE,KOZHIKODE TALUK.

¶12

5. VIGNESH AGED 23 YEARS S/O. VELAYUDHAN,NAYARKUZHI,POOLAKODE KOZHIKODE TALUK.

¶13

BY ADVS.SRI.P.S.SREEDHARAN PILLAI SRI.ARJUN SREEDHAR

¶14

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT/STATE:

¶15

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

¶16

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.LALIZA T.Y.

¶17

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21-01-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

tss

¶19

P. BHAVADASAN, J.

B.A. No. 231 of 2013

Dated this the 21^st day of January, 2013.

¶24

ORDER

¶25

Petitioners are accused Nos.3 to 5, 8 and 10 in Crime No. 927 of 2012 of Kunnamangalam Police Station, who are alleged to have committed offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 341, 324, 427, 447 and 308 read with Section 149 I.P.C.

¶26

The allegation against the petitioners is that on 21.12.2012 at 11.45p.m., they, along with the other accused persons, in furtherance of their common object, attacked the defacto complainant using dangerous weapons causing injuries to him.

¶27

The petitioners would say that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated due to political rivalry and they have no role to play in the incident. According to them, they have been in custody from 22.12.2012 and 25.12.2012, and their continued custody is unnecessary. It is also pointed out that that there is a

¶28

B.A.231/2013. 2

¶29

counter case also regarding the same incident and Section 447 is incorporated therein also.

¶30

Learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that the offence committed is serious and that investigation is still going on. It is also pointed out that in the counter case, only bailable offences are there and in the case on hand offence under Section 308 is also incorporated.

¶31

After having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor and after having perused the CD, the claim of the petitioners that they are innocent cannot be accepted. There are materials to show that they have attacked the defacto complainant with dangerous weapons. A deeper probe into these matters is not warranted at this point of time. The fact remains that the petitioners have been in custody for nearly a month and a good part of the investigation must have been completed by now. Since no apprehension is expressed by the investigating agency that if the petitioners are released on

¶32

B.A.231/2013.

¶33

¶34

bail, they will abscond, it is felt that continued custody of the petitioners is not necessary.

¶35

Therefore, this application is allowed on the following conditions:

¶36

i) Petitioners shall be released on bail on each of them executing a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of JFCM court concerned.

¶37

ii) The learned Magistrate may ensure the identity of the sureties and also the veracity of the tax receipts that are sought to be produced at the time of executing the bond.

¶38

iii) Petitioners shall report before the Investigating Officer on every Thursday between 9 a.m. and 10 a.m. till final report is laid.

¶39

iv) Petitioners shall not tamper or attempt to tamper with the evidence or influence or try to influence the witnesses.

¶40

B.A.231/2013.

¶41

¶42

v) If any of the conditions is violated, bail granted to the petitioners shall stand cancelled, and the JFCM concerned may take such steps as are available to him in law.

¶43

P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE

¶44

sb.

Sundaran v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sundaran 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

Pradeep Vs State of Kerala

Sathyan Vs State of Kerala

T.B.Majeed Vs State of Kerala

P.M.Manoraj Vs State of Kerala

Sajeev.P. Vs Sub Inspector of Police

Najeema Vs Sub Inspector of Police