Allowed

Gandheevan @ Arun v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC7 Jan 2013Bail Appl./8778/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against the rejection of bail petition filed by the accused in a Section 307 IPC case. The bench allowed the bail petition on conditions to release the appellant after rejecting the claim of alternative implication but considering the duration of custody and lack of flight risk.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner was released on bail upon executing a bond of Rs. 25,000 with two solvent sureties for the same amount, subject to conditions of reporting and maintaining investigation integrity.

Gandheevan @ Arun Vs 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 P.BHAVADASAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY 2013/17TH POUSHA 1934

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 8778 of 2012 () -----------------------------CMP.5851/2012 of J.M.F.C., HARIPAD IN CRIME NO.45/2011 OF HARIPPAD POLICE STATION

¶6

ACCUSED(S):

¶7

GANDHEVAN @ ARUN,, AGED 34 YEARS S/O RAMAKRISHNAN, PALAPPALLI VEETTIL, PAYIKUZHI MURI OCHIRA, ALAPPUZHA

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.R.SUNIL KUMAR SMT.A.SALINI LAL

¶9

COMPLAINANT(S)/COMPLAINANTS: ----------------------------

¶10

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH CORUT OF KERALA, THROUGH SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE HARIPPAD POLICE STATION

¶11

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. V.S. SREEJITH

¶12

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07-01-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

¶14

P. BHAVADASAN, J.

¶15

- - - - B.A. No. 8778 of 2012

¶16

¶17

Dated this the 7^th day of January, 2013.

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No. 45 of 2011 of Harippad Police Station, who is alleged to have committed offences punishable under Section 307 I.P.C.

¶20

The allegation against the petitioner is that on 22.1.2011 at 9.30 p.m. he had attacked the defacto complainant with dangerous weapon and caused serious injuries on his head.

¶21

The petitioner would say that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated with ulterior motive. According to him, the incident did not take place as alleged. At any rate, according to him, he has been in custody from 21.10.2012 onwards and his continued custody is unnecessary.

¶22

Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the petition

¶23

by pointing out that investigation is still going on.

¶24

B.A.8778/2012. 2

¶25

CD was made available for perusal. On going through the CD, the claim of the petitioner that he is

¶26

innocent cannot be accepted. It is seen from the wound certificate that the victim had suffered serious injuries. As of now, there are materials to show the involvement of the petitioner. But the fact remains that the petitioner has been in custody from 21.10.2012 onwards and a good part of the investigation must have been completed by now. Since there is no apprehension expressed by the investigating agency that if released on bail, the petitioner is likely to abscond, continued custody of the petitioner seems unnecessary.

¶27

Therefore, this application is allowed on the following conditions:

¶28

i) Petitioner shall be released on bail on his 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-I, Haripad.

¶29

B.A.8778/2012.

¶30

¶31

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.

¶32

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

¶33

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

¶34

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

¶35

P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE

¶36

sb.

Gandheevan @ Arun v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gandheevan @ Arun 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Praveen Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Razak Vs State of Kerala

Gafoor K.S. Vs State of Kerala

Afsal V.K. Vs the Station House Officer

Umadath a. Vs State of Kerala

Ranjithkumar P.P Vs State of Kerala