Dismissed

Sunilkumar v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC3 Oct 2013Bail Appl./6297/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application, the court dismissed the petition of two accused persons charged with offences under various IPC sections for attacking a complainant with weapons. The court held that the nature of allegations, time of offence, weapons used, and infant stage of investigation precluded granting bail.

What did the court decide?

Bail application dismissed; petitioners advised to surrender to Investigating Officer before 10.10.2013.

Sunilkumar 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

THURSDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF OCTOBER 2013/11TH ASWINA, 1935

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 6297 of 2013 ()

¶6

------------------------------CRIME NO. 2651/2013 OF KARUNAGAPALLY POLICE STATION , KOLLAM DISTRICT

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.2 & 3:

¶8

1. SUNILKUMAR, AGED 28 YEARS,S/O JAYADEVAN, BHARATHY MANDIRAM, KALLELI BHAGAM MURI, KALLELI BHAGAM VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶9

2. UMESH, AGED 19 YEARS, S/O UNNI, UMESH BHAVANAM, KALLELI BHAGAM MURI, KALLELI BHAGAM VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN SRI.SAIJO HASSAN

¶11

RESPONDNET/STATE:

¶12

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

¶13

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. DHANESH MATHEW MANJOORAN

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03-10-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

sts

¶16

P.BHAVADASAN, J.

¶17

Bail Application No.6297 OF 2013 --------------------------------------Dated this the 3^rd day of October, 2013.

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

The petitioners are accused Nos.2 and 3 in Crime No.2651/2013 of Karunagapally Police Station who are alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 427, 452, 324, 323, 294(b), 354 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code. The allegation against the petitioners is that, on the date of the incident at about 10.30 p.m, they armed with weapons trespassed into the house of the de facto complainant and attacked the de facto complainant causing injuries.

¶20

The petitioners would say that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the matter. According to them, there was a family dispute and the said dispute has been given a twist to suit the convenience of the de facto complainant. It is pointed out that the petitioners have not committed any overt act causing injury to the victim. It is also pointed out that they did

¶21

B.A.No.6297/2013

¶22

¶23

not use any dangerous weapons. They therefore seek pre arrest bail.

¶24

Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the petition and pointed out that the petitioners along with the 1^st accused had gone to the house of the de facto complainant and attacked her and it is not as if the petitioners are totally innocent. It is also pointed out that the investigation is at an infant stage.

¶25

After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Public Prosecutor and also after having perused the records, the claim of the petitioners that they are totally innocent cannot be accepted. A deeper probe into the veracity of the allegations is not warranted at this point of time.

¶26

Suffice to say that, considering the nature of the allegations against the petitioners, the time at which the offence was committed, the weapon used, the injury caused and also the fact that the investigation is at an infant stage, this Court is precluded from exercising its extra ordinary jurisdiction in favour of the petitioners. Therefore, the application is only to be dismissed and I do so.

¶27

B.A.No.6297/2013

¶28

¶29

However, if the petitioners are so advised, they may surrender before the Investigating Officer on or before 10.10.2013 who, after interrogation, shall produce them before the Court concerned who, on an application of bail being moved by the petitioners, shall dispose of the same in accordance with law, preferably on the same day itself.

¶30

Sd/-

¶31

P.BHAVADASAN JUDGE

¶32

smp

¶33

// True Copy //

¶34

P.A. to Judge.

Sunilkumar v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunilkumar 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

A.Sudhag Vs State of Kerala

Samson Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Nazar Vs State of Kerala

Sherin Kasim Vs State of Kerala

Anburaj Vs State of Kerala

M.K. Bhaskaran Vs State of Kerala