Allowed

A.Pramod v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC24 Mar 2014Bail Appl./1891/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail application, the High Court of Kerala granted bail to the accused, who was charged with an offence punishable under Section 308 of the Indian Penal Code for forcibly kicking a scooter and throwing riders onto the road. The court noted the period of detention and prescribed specific conditions, including sureties and recording statements. Although the prosecution argued the offence war

What did the court decide?

Bail granted to the accused with effect from 25.3.2014, subject to conditions of a bond with sureties, appearance before police, and surrender of passport.

A.Pramod Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH 2014/3RD CHAITHRA, 1936

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 1891 of 2014 ()

¶6

Crl.MC 265/2014 of SESSIONS COURT, THALASSERY OP 416/2013 of FAMILY COURT, THALASSERY CRIME NO. 220/2014 OF KUTHUPARAMBA POLICE STATION

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) :-

¶8

A.PRAMOD AGED 33 YEARS S/O. GOPALAN, CHUNDAYIL HOUSE, MANANTHERIAMSOM VANNATHIMOOLADESOM, P.O MANANTHERI THALASSRY TALUK KANNUR DISTRICT

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.SATHEESHAN ALAKKADAN SRI.A.ARUNKUMAR

¶10

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT/STATE :-

¶11

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

¶12

2. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, (CRIME NO 220 OF 2014 OF KUTHUPARAMBA POLICE STATION) KANNUR DISTRICT

¶13

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.DHANESH MATHEW MANJOORAN

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24-03-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

jvt

¶16

N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, J.

¶17

B.A. No.1891 of 2014

¶18

Dated this the 24^th day of March 2014

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.220/2014 of Kuthuparamba Police Station. The offence alleged against him as per the FIR is punishable under Sec.308 of IPC. It is stated that the petitioner is the husband of the de facto complainant.

¶21

It is alleged that on 13.2.2014 at 9.30 AM while the complainant was riding her scooter bearing No.KL-58-J6407 along with her brother as pillion rider, the accused followed them in a motor bike and he (the accused) forcibly kicked on the back of the scooter and thus, the complainant and her brother were thrown to the public road and they sustained injury.

¶22

Learned Public Prosecutor submits that in fact the offence should fall under Sec.307 of IPC. The act of the accused will depict his intention. He had the reason to

¶23

B.A. No.1891 of 2014

¶24

-: 2 :-

¶25

believe that the rider or the pillion rider if thrown to the road due to the force applied by the accused, if the head of the rider or the pillion rider hit on the tar road or if any vehicle runs over them, who fell on the public road, it would result in their death. It seems the police officer tries to oversimplify or belittle the gravity of the crime and is trying to justify his act saying that the offence would fall only under Sec.308 of IPC, the learned Public Prosecutor submits. In cases of this nature, it is inconceivable why the police officer decides even during this stage that the offence would fall only under Sec.308 of IPC totally disregarding the reasonable and probable consequences of the offender's act. If the police officer shows any laxity, it is for the Superior Officer to deal with the matter properly.

¶26

Petitioner has been in custody from 13.2.2014.

¶27

Considering the period of detention already

¶28

undergone by the accused, the accused is granted bail with effect from 25.3.2014 subject to the following conditions:

¶29

B.A. No.1891 of 2014

¶30

-: 3 :-

¶31

a. The accused shall execute a bond for 50,000/-₹ (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate. If in case the Magistrate has any doubt about the genuineness or correctness of the tax receipts produced by the sureties, the learned Magistrate can insist for production of the attested photo copies of the original title deeds of the sureties.

¶32

b. The accused shall make himself available for interrogation by the Investigating Officer and shall appear before the Sub Inspector of Police, Kuthuparamba Police Station on all Mondays and Fridays between 9.30 AM to 11.30 AM until further orders.

¶33

c. The accused shall produce his original passport before the learned Magistrate. If he is not having any valid passport, he should file an affidavit regarding the same before the Magistrate.

¶34

d. The accused will also file affidavit that he will abide by all the conditions as mentioned above and that he will not commit any offence similar to the offence involved in this case and will not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat

¶35

B.A. No.1891 of 2014

¶36

-: 4 :-

¶37

or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶38

e. The accused shall not leave India without permission of the court.

¶39

f. The learned Magistrate will also ensure the identity of the sureties by insisting production of electoral photo identity cards/Driving licence etc.

¶40

Sd/N.K.BALAKRISHNAN,

¶41

JUDGE.

¶42

Jvt

A.Pramod v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Pramod 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

Shineesh Vs State of Kerala

Sreekumar Vs State of Kerala

Leela Vs State of Kerala

Suresh Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Rahiman Vs State of Kerala

Shibu Vs State of Kerala