Allowed

Sajeesh v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC3 Dec 2013Bail Appl./7829/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala granted bail to two accused persons charged with offences under various sections of the Indian Penal Code. The court imposed strict conditions involving surrender for interrogation, financial deposits, and reporting requirements to balance the rights of the accused with the interests of the complainant.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted with conditions including surrender for interrogation, deposit of security bond, execution of FDR, and reporting to the Investigating Officer.

Sajeesh Vs the State of Kerala — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF DECEMBER 2013/12TH AGRAHAYANA, 1935 Bail Appl..No. 7829 of 2013 () ------------------------------CRIME NO. 282/2013 OF VAZHIKADAVU POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM

¶5

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 & 5:

¶6

-----------------------------

¶7

1. SAJEESH, AGED 25 YEARS,S/O.VIJAYAKUMAR, KOZHIPURATH HOUSE, NARIVALAMUNDA MODAPOIKA, VAZHIKKADAVU, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶8

2. KANNAN @ PRASANNAN, AGED 26 YEARS S/O.KESAVAN, MULAVANA HOUSE, NAROKKAVU PALEMADU, VAZHIKKADAVU, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR

¶10

RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT:

¶11

-------------------------------

¶12

1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682031.

¶13

2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VAZHIKKADAVU POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT PIN-679333.

¶14

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. LALIZA

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03-12-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

¶17

THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J.

¶18

=========================

¶19

Bail Application No.7829 of 2013 ============================ Dated this the 3^rd day of December, 2013

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

Petitioners are accused Nos. 1 and 2, in Crime No.282 of 2013 of the Vazhikkadavu police station for the offences punishable under Secs. 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324 and 326 r/w. Sec. 149 of the Penal Code, apprehend arrest and have filed this application.

¶22

Learned Public Prosecutor, while opposing the application has submitted that on the night of 19.10.2013 on the eve of marriage of daughter of one Kuttappan, the petitioners and others attacked the de facto complainant. It is submitted that in the First Information Statement the weapon referred to is a sword but subsequently it is corrected and stated as granite stone and bamboo stick. It is submitted that the first petitioner/A1 assaulted the de facto complainant with granite stone while the second petitioner/A2 assaulted him with bamboo stick. The de

¶23

B.A No. 7829 of 2013

¶24

¶25

facto complainant suffered fracture on tip of middle finger. It is also submitted that the above said weapons are recovered.

¶26

Learned counsel submits that the allegations are not true. Amccused Nos. 3 to 6 were granted relief by the learned Sessions Judge, Manjeri. According to the learned counsel, it is after a few days of the alleged incident that the de facto complainant came with a case of this nature. The fracture could have been sustained in some other manner.

¶27

Since the weapons are recovered, custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not required. Having regard to the nature of injury the de facto complainant has suffered, I am inclined to grant relief to the petitioners but at the same time protecting the interest of the de facto complainant to some extent and subject to conditions so that recurrence of such incidents in future is prevented.

¶28

Resultantly, application is allowed as under:

¶29

1. Petitioners/accused 1 and 2 shall surrender before officer investigating Crime No.282 of 2013 of the Vazhikkadavu police station on 10.12.2013 at 10:00

¶30

B.A No. 7829 of 2013

¶31

¶32

a.m. for interrogation.

¶33

1. In case interrogation is not completed that day, it is open to the investigating officer to direct presence of the petitioners before him on other date/dates and time which the petitioners shall comply.

¶34

1. In case of arrest, petitioners shall be produced before the jurisdictional magistrate the same day.

¶35

1. On such production, the petitioners shall be released on bail (if not required to be detained otherwise) in Crime No.282 of 2013 of the Vazhikkadavu police station on their executing bond for Rs.25,000/(Rupees Twenty five thousand only) each with two sureties each for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned magistrate and subject to the following conditions:-

¶36

a) One of the sureties shall be a close relative of any of the petitioners.

¶37

b) Petitioners shall report to the Investigating Officer on every Saturday between 08:00 a.m. and 09:00 a.m. until filing of the final report.

¶38

c) Petitioners shall report to the investigating officer as and when required for interrogation.

¶39

d) Petitioners shall deposit Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) each in a nationalised bank for a

¶40

B.A No. 7829 of 2013

¶41

¶42

period of two years (renewable as per the order of the learned magistrate) and produce the FD receipt before the learned magistrate within three weeks from on their executing the bail bonds.

¶43

e) In case the case is decided against the petitioners or any of them and they/he is made liable to pay compensation to the de facto complainant such compensation, to the extent possible could be realised from the amount in deposit.

¶44

e) Petitioners shall not get involved in any offence during the period of this bail.

¶45

f) Petitioners shall not intimidate/influence the witnesses.

¶46

f) It is made clear that in case any of the above condition is violated, it is open to the Investigating Officer to seek cancellation of the bail granted hereby by moving application before the learned magistrate as held in P.K. Shaji V. State of Kerala (AIR 2006 Supreme Court 100).

¶47

Sd/-

¶48

THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE

¶49

//true copy//

¶50

P.A. to Judge

¶51

Smv

Sajeesh v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sajeesh v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Heera Vs State of Kerala

Sajan Sunny Vs State of Kerala

Niju Sainudheen Vs State of Kerala

Praveen K.Ravi Vs State of Kerala

Kumar Vs the State of Kerala

Prasad @ Sivaprasad Vs State of Kerala