Dismissed

Anilkumar (Kochani) v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC7 Oct 2013Bail Appl./3500/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed the bail application of two accused alleged to have committed offences under various sections of the IPC. The Court found that available materials attributed specific overt acts to the petitioners and the infant stage of investigation precluded granting bail.

What did the court decide?

Bail application dismissed. Petitioners directed to surrender to Investigating Officer.

Anilkumar (Kochani) 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 7TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2013/15TH ASWINA, 1935

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 3500 of 2013

¶6

CRIME NO. 374/2013 OF THEKKUMBHAGOM POLICE STATION , KOLLAM

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

1. ANILKUMAR (KOCHANI),AGED 30 YEARS, S/O.SIVANANDAN, EDATHARA THEKKATHIL, PUTHENSANKETHAM, KOIVILA.

¶9

2. RATHEESH,AGED 30 YEARS, S/O.RAVHAVAN PILLAI, PARATHOOR KIZHAKKATHIL, PALACKAL, THEVALAKKARA, KOLLAM.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.ZUBAIR PULIKKOOL

¶11

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶12

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.

¶13

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. P.MAYA

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07-10-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

Kss

P.BHAVADASAN, J.

- - - - Dated this the 07^th day of October, 2013

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

Petitioners are accused Nos. 4 and 5 in Crime No.374 of 2013 of Tekkumbhagam Police Station who are alleged to have committed offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 452, 323, 324, 354, 294(b) read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶21

The allegation against the petitioners is that they along with other co-accused on 20.04.2013 at about 8.00 p.m., trespassed into the house of the defacto complainant and assaulted him. While he was being attacked, the wife and the brother of the defacto complainant came to his rescue and they were also attacked.

¶22

Petitioners would point out that their name did not originally come in the FIR and they have been subsequently implicated with ulterior motive. They deny of having committed any of the act which occurred on the date of

¶23

B.A. No. 3500/2013

¶24

-2-

¶25

incident.

¶26

The learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that as per the records and the instructions received by her, petitioners were actively involved in the incident and the specific overt acts are attributed to them. Further, it is pointed out that the investigation is at an infant stage.

¶27

After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor and having perused the records, the claim of the petitioners that they are innocent cannot be accepted. The learned Public Prosecutor has pointed out that the materials now available, specific overt acts are attributed to A4 and A5.

¶28

Considering the nature of allegations against the petitioners, the manner in which the offence was committed, the time at which the offence was committed, the weapons used, injuries caused to 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

¶29

B.A. No. 3500/2013

¶30

-3-

¶31

petitioners.

¶32

The petition is accordingly dismissed.

¶33

However, if so advised, petitioners may surrender

¶34

before the Investigating Officer on or before 11.10.2013, who after interrogation, shall produce them before the JFCM Court concerned. If the petitioners move an application for bail before the said court, the learned Magistrate shall consider and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law, preferably on the date of surrender itself.

¶35

P.BHAVADASAN JUDGE

¶36

Anilkumar (Kochani) v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anilkumar (Kochani) 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

T.P.Narayanan Vs Station House Officer

Noble Vs State of Kerala

Subash Vs State of Kerala

Raveendran Vs State of Kerala

Muneer Vs State of Kerala

Rajesh Vs State of Kerala