Allowed

A.Sudhag v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC1 Oct 2013Bail Appl./5917/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-bench bail application order from the Kerala High Court allowed the bail of accused persons in a crime involving alleged offences underSections 143, 147, 148, 452, 323, 324, 354 IPC, 294(b) read with 149 IPC. The court noted the investigation was at an infant stage and granted bail subject to specific surrender and conduct conditions.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed; petitioners to surrender by 08.10.2013; execute bond for Rs 10,000 with two sureties; appear every Wednesday; no tampering with evidence allowed.

A.Sudhag 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 1ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2013/9TH ASWINA, 1935

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 5917 of 2013 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 540/2013 OF PAYANGADI POLICE STATION, KANNUR DISTRICT

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO 1, 2, 3 & 5 :

¶8

1. A.SUDHAJ, S/O.DAMODARAN, AGED 23 YEARS

¶9

ARINGALIYAN HOUSE, CHENGATHADAM P.O EZHOME, KANNUR DISTRICT

¶10

2. N.BABURAJ,

¶11

S/O.GOPALAN, AGED 39 YEARS,

¶12

NIRICHAN HOUSE, CHENGATHADAM P.O PAYANGADI, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶13

3. T.SUMITHRAN S/O.KANJIRAN, AGED 44 YEARS, THALLARIYAN HOUSE CHENGATHADAM P.O., PAYANGADI, KANNUR DISTRICT

¶14

4. K. AMAL LAL, S/O.SREEDHARAN, AGED 20 YEARS,

¶15

CHENGATHADAM P.O, PAYANGADI KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶16

5. M.NARAYANAN, S/O.GOVINDAN, AGED 48 YEARS,

¶17

MADAN HOUSE, CHENGATHADAM P.O PAYANGADI, KANNUR DISTRICT

¶18

BY ADV. SRI. I.V. PRAMOD

¶19

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT/STATE :

¶20

STATE OF KERALA

¶21

REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERLA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI 31.

¶22

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. DHANESH MATHEW MANJOORAN

¶23

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

P.BHAVADASAN, J.

- - - - Dated this the 01^st day of October, 2013

¶28

O R D E R

¶29

Petitioners are accused in Crime No. 540 of 2013 of Payangadi Police Station who are alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 452, 323, 324, 354, 294(b) read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶30

The allegation against the petitioners is that on 14.08.2013 at about 7.45 p.m., the accused who are the sympathizers of CPM, formed themselves into an unlawful assembly, trespassed into the house of the victim and assaulted her and tried to outrage the modesty of the victim.

¶31

The petitioner would say that the allegations are totally false and incident has been given a distorted version to suit the prosecution case. According to them, there was a meeting in the courtyard of the house concerned where the group split up into two and there was a scuffle between

¶32

B.A. No. 5917/2013

¶33

-2-

¶34

the two groups, in this some other persons also intervened. In that scuffle, a few persons persons might have suffered injuries. But the allegation is that there was an attempt to

¶35

outrage the modesty is totally false.

¶36

The learned Public Prosecutor only pointed out that the investigation is at an infant stage.

¶37

After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor and having perused the records, though it cannot be said that the petitioners are totally innocent, there seems to be some force in their submission that the offence under Section 354 of IPC has been deliberately incorporated to increase the gravity of the acts committed by the petitioners. Even assuming the allegation in that regard is true, as of now, it is difficult to understand the said offence can be attracted. Anyhow, a deeper probe into those matters is not warranted at this point of time. Considering the nature of acts alleged to have been committed by the petitioners, it is felt that this

¶38

B.A. No. 5917/2013

¶39

-3-

¶40

is a fit case where extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court needs to be exercised in favour of the petitioners.

¶41

The petition is allowed as follows:

¶42

1. Petitioners shall surrender before the Investigating

¶43

Officer on or before 08.10. 2013 , who, after interrogation, shall produce them before the JFCM court concerned, which court, on an application for bail being moved by the petitioners shall release them on bail on each of them executing a bond for a sum of ` 10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the said court.

¶44

1. The court concerned shall ensure the identity of the sureties and the veracity of the tax receipts, before granting bail.

¶45

1. Petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer on every Wednesday between 9.00 am to 10.00 am until further orders.

¶46

B.A. No. 5917/2013

¶47

-4-

¶48

1. Petitioners shall not tamper or attempt to tamper with the evidence and influence or try to influence the witnesses.

¶49

1. If any of the conditions is violated, bail granted to the petitioners shall stand cancelled and the court concerned may take such steps as are available to it in accordance with law.

¶50

P.BHAVADASAN JUDGE

¶51

A.Sudhag v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Sudhag 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

Rashid.M. Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Nizar Vs State of Kerala

Umesh Vs State of Kerala

Samson Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Nazar Vs State of Kerala

Majiziya Bhanu Vs State of Kerala