Allowed

Pradeepkumar v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC9 Jun 2014Bail Appl./2766/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application by the petitioner accused of attempting to cause death by driving a vehicle, the Court granted pre-arrest bail subject to surrender for interrogation, cooperation with investigation, execution of a bond with sureties, and specific reporting and non-influencing conditions.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; petitioner granted pre-arrest bail subject to conditions including surrender for interrogation, execution of bond with sureties, periodic reporting, and supplementary conditions.

Pradeepkumar 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

MONDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF JUNE 2014/19TH JYAISHTA, 1936

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 2766 of 2014 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 719/2013 OF KELAKAM POLICE STATION, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

PRADEEP KUMAR. K., AGED 30 YEARS, S/O.GANGADHARAN, CHELERIPARAMBIL HOUSE, THOLAMBRA P.O., THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.V.BINOY RAM.

¶10

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶11

STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶12

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.V.S. SREEJITH.

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09-06-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

rs.

¶15

THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J

¶16

B.A.No.2766 of 2014

¶17

Dated this the 9^th day of June, 2014

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Petitioner is accused in Crime No.719 of 2013 of the kelakam Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 308, 341 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, apprehends arrest and has filed the application.

¶20

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the application. It is submitted that on 18.12.2013 while the de facto complainant was working as Supervisor of the PWD department and supervising road work, the petitioner came driving a vehicle and attempted to cause death of the de facto complainant by hitting with that vehicle. The vehicle is not recovered.

¶21

Learned counsel submits that the allegations are not true. It is also submitted that the petitioner is prepared to produce the vehicle before the investigating officer.

¶22

Having regard to the nature of allegations, I am inclined to grant relief to the petitioner but subject to conditions.

¶23

Application is allowed as under:

¶24

(i) Petitioner shall surrender before the Officer

¶25

B.A.No.2766 of 2014

¶26

¶27

investigating Crime No.719 of 2013 of the kelakam Police Station on 16.06.2014 at 10 a.m for interrogation.

¶28

(ii) In case interrogation is not completed that day, it is open to the officer concerned to direct presence of the petitioner on other day/days and time and place as may be specified by him which the petitioner shall comply.

¶29

(iii) Petitioner shall co-operate with investigation of the

¶30

case.

¶31

(iv) In case arrest of the petitioner is recorded, he shall be produced before the jurisdictional magistrate the same day. (v) On such production, the petitioner shall be released on bail (if not required to be detained otherwise) on his executing bond for Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned magistrate and subject to the following conditions:

¶32

(a) One of the sureties shall be a close relative of the petitioner.

¶33

(b) Petitioner shall report to the officer investigating the case on every alternate Saturday between 03.00 p.m and 05.00 p.m. for a period of two months or until filing of the final report, whichever is earlier.

¶34

¶35

¶36

B.A.No.2766 of 2014

¶37

case as and when required for interrogation.

¶38

(d) Petitioner shall not, during the period of this bail get involved in any offence.

¶39

(e) Petitioner shall not intimidate or influence the

¶40

witnesses.

¶41

(vi) It is made clear that in case any of condition Nos. (b) to (e) is violated, it is open to the Investigating Officer to seek cancellation of the bail granted hereby by moving application before the learned magistrate (until committal of the case if any and thereafter, before the learned Principal Sessions Judge concerned) as held in P.K. Shaji V. State of Kerala (AIR

¶42

2006 Supreme Court 100).

¶43

(vii) It is made clear that in case by the time the petitioner is produced before the learned magistrate the vehicle allegedly involved in the incident not seized/recovered, this order granting pre-arrest bail would cease to be effective. Thereon, it is open to the petitioner to move application for regular bail before the learned magistrate.

¶44

Sd/-

¶45

THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE.

¶46

¶47

/True Copy/

¶48

P.A. to Judge

Pradeepkumar v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradeepkumar 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sandeep Vs State of Kerala

Rejin Vs State of Kerala

Suresh Kumar @ Wilson Vs State of Kerala

Jomon @ Jomon Chandy Vs State of Kerala

Santhosh G. Nair Vs State of Kerala

Jinu Vs State of Kerala