Dismissed

Athul Krishna v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC22 May 2014Bail Appl./2651/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court rejected a bail application for accused persons charged under provisions of the Indian Penal Code relating to rioting and attempted murder. The interim order preventing arrest until mid-June was recorded but included a condition prohibiting movement outside the district without magistrate permission.

What did the court decide?

Request for pre-arrest bail rejected; submission regarding non-arrest until June 3, 2014 recorded with condition restricting movement outside Ernakulam district.

Athul Krishna 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 THOMAS P.JOSEPH

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF MAY 2014/1ST JYAISHTA, 1936

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 2651 of 2014 () ------------------------------CRIME NO. 539/2014 OF ERNAKULAM CENTRAL POLICE STATION , ERNAKULAM PETITIONER: -----------

¶6

1. ATHUL KRISHNA AGED 18 YEARS S/O RATHEESH, KAPPALUNGAL HOUSE, PUTHENANAGADI AROOR P.O., ALAPPUZHA 2. AKSHAY G. GOPI AGED 18 YEARS S/O.V.P.GOPI, PUTHUSSERI PARAMBIL HOUSE, PONEKKARA AIMS P.O., KOCHI - 682 014. 3. BALU PRADEEP AGED 18 YEARS S/O.PRADEEP, VAZHAKKAPPALLI HOUSE, EDAPPALLY NORTH AIMS P.O., KOCHI - 682 041. 4. AJITH SOMAN AGED 18 YEARS S/O.SOMAN, ALIYATH HOUSE, PERUMANA ROAD PONEKKARA, AIMS, P.O.KOCHI - 682 041. 5. AMAL AGED 18 YEARS S/O MANOJ P.B., POTHUVASSERY HOUSE, PUTHUVYPPU P.O. ERNAKULAM 6. AMAL KRISHNAN N.P AGED 18 YEARS S/O PURUSHAN, NIKATHIL HOUSE, NJARAKKAL ERNAKULAM. 7. VYSAKH MOHAN AGED 18 YEARS S/O.MOHANAN, PUTHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, CHOTTANIKKARA P.., KOCHI - 682 312. 8. RAHUL K.B AGED 18 YEARS S/O BONY, KALATHIPARAMBIL HOUSE, NJARAKKAL PO VALAKADAVU, KOCHI - 682 505. BY ADV. SRI.K.R.VINOD

¶7

RESPONDENT: ----------

¶8

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR: ADV LALIZA

¶9

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22-05-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶10

THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J.

¶11

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

¶12

B.A.No.2651 of 2014

¶13

============================ Dated this the 22^nd day of May, 2014

¶14

O R D E R

¶15

Petitioners are accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 to 9 in Crime No.539 of 2014 of the Central Police Station, Ernakulam for the offences punishable under Secs.143, 147, 148, 323, 324 and 307 r/w Sec.149 of the Indian Penal Code, apprehend arrest and have filed this application.

¶16

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the application. It is submitted that on 20.03.2014 at about 1.50p.m, the petitioners and others who formed unlawful assembly committed rioting armed with knife, iron rod, iron chain voluntarily caused hurt and attempted to cause death of the de facto complainant and others. Accused Nos.6, 7 and 9 are involved in another crime as well. The weapons are not recovered.

¶17

Learned counsel submits that the allegations are not true. It is submitted that though there is an allegation of use of deadly weapons, there is either no injury or the injury inflicted is only minor making the allegation regarding use of weapons false. It is also submitted that the petitioners are students of the college aged about 18 years undergoing examination. Learned counsel has

¶18

B.A.No.2651 of 2014

¶19

¶20

also invited my attention to the interim order this Court has passed on 13.05.2014 preventing arrest till 22.05.2014. It is also submitted that examination of the petitioners will be over only on 03.06.2014. According to the learned counsel, if at all this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners, the interim order may be kept alive until 03.06.2014.

¶21

On hearing the learned counsel and the learned Public Prosecutor and considering the facts of the case, I am not inclined to think that this is a case where relief could be granted to the petitioners. The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the petitioners will not be arrested until 03.06.2014 since they are attending examination. That submission is recorded.

¶22

The application is disposed of as under:

¶23

(i) Request for pre-arrest bail is rejected.

¶24

(ii) Submission of the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioners will not be arrested until 03.06.2014 is recorded subject to the condition that the petitioners shall not, during the said period go beyond Ernakulam district except with the permission of the jurisdictional magistrate.

¶25

(iii) It is open to the petitioners to surrender before the investigating officer or the Court concerned. In case the petitioners are

¶26

B.A.No.2651 of 2014

¶27

¶28

arrested, they shall be produced before the jurisdictional magistrate as early as possible.

¶29

Sd/-

¶30

THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE.

¶31

Sbna

¶32

True Copy

¶33

P A to Judge

Athul Krishna v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Athul Krishna 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

K.Jacob Vs State of Kerala

Jaleel Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Jaleel.P. Vs the State of Kerala

Anandavalli Vs State of Kerala

Jerin Vs State of Kerala

Hashim Vs State of Kerala