Allowed

Rahul Govind v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC3 Jul 2014Bail Appl./3215/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail was granted to accused 2 and 7 in a criminal case involving unlawful assembly and assault. The court held that custodial interrogation was not required, subjecting the accused to strict reporting conditions and bonds.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted subject to executing bond and conditions including surrender for interrogation, alternate Saturday reporting for two months, and prohibition of intimidating witnesses.

Rahul Govind 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 3RD DAY OF JULY 2014/12TH ASHADHA, 1936

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 3215 of 2014 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 150/2014 OF THALAYOLAPARAMBU POLICE STATION , KOTTAYAM

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:

¶8

RAHUL GOVIND, AGED 22 YEARS S/O.GOVINDAN PUTHUKKULANGARA HOUSE KULASEKHARAMANGALAM P.O VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM DIST.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.C.M.NAZAR

¶10

SRI.MANSOOR.B.H.

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT/STATE:

¶12

STATE OF KERALA REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTING H.S.O, THALAYOLAPPARAMPU P.S KOTTAYAM DIST.

¶13

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.S.SREEJITH

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03-07-2014, ALONG WITH BA. 3216/2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

dlk

¶16

THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J

¶17

B.A.Nos.3215 & 3216 of 2014

¶18

Dated this the 3^rd day of July, 2014

¶19

ORDER

¶20

These applications are preferred by the accused 2 and 7 in Crime No.150 of 2014 of the Thalayolapparamba Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 341, 294(b), 323, 324, 308, 506(i) r/w Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, apprehend arrest and have filed the application.

¶21

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the application. It is submitted that on 17.02.2014 at about 08.45 a.m., these accused and others formed unlawful assembly and attacked the de facto complainant with iron rod. The first and second accused used the iron rod while others assaulted the de facto complainant with hands.

¶22

Learned counsel submits that as revealed by Annexure-A in B.A.No.3215 of 2014, the second accused who is a student of the Government Law College, Kozhikode was attending his class on the relevant day from 09.00 a.m., to 10.00 a.m., and name of the accused is not mentioned in the F.I.S. Referring to Annexures-A and B in B.A.No.3216 of 2014 it

¶23

B.A.Nos.3215 & 3216 of 2014

¶24

¶25

is contended that from 08.02.2014 to 26.02.2014 the 7^th accused was on duty as salesman at the National Exhibition of Hand looms at Marin drive, Kozhikode (while the alleged incident occurred on 17.02.2014).

¶26

Virtually the plea registered by the accused 2 and 7 is one of alibi which has to be set up as a defence in the course of trial. I therefore do not express any opinion concerning acceptability of the said contention. Though the second accused is alleged to have used the iron rod, it is revealed that the iron rod is recovered. The allegations against the 7^th accused is that he assaulted the de facto complainant with hands. Accused 2 and 7 are not reported to be involved in any other case. In the circumstances I am inclined to think that their custodial interrogation is not required. I am inclined to grant relief but subject to conditions.

¶27

Applications are allowed as under:

¶28

(i) The accused 2 & 7 shall surrender before the officer investigating Crime No.150 of 2014 of the Thalayolapparamba Police Station on 10.07.2014 at 10.00 a.m for interrogation.

¶29

(ii) In case interrogation is not completed that day, it is open to the officer concerned to direct presence of the accused 2 & 7 on other day/days and time which the accused

¶30

B.A.Nos.3215 & 3216 of 2014

¶31

¶32

2 & 7 shall comply.

¶33

(iii) In case arrest of the accused 2 & 7 is recorded, they shall be produced before the jurisdictional magistrate the same day.

¶34

(iv) On such production the accused 2 & 7 shall be released on bail (if not required to be detained otherwise) on their executing bond for 20,000/- (Rupees twenty 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:

¶35

(a) One of the sureties shall be a close relative of any of the accused 2 & 7.

¶36

(b) The accused 2 & 7 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.

¶37

¶38

(d) The accused 2 & 7 shall not get involved in any offence during the period of this bail.

¶39

(e) The accused 2 & 7 shall not intimidate or influence the witnesses.

¶40

¶41

B.A.Nos.3215 & 3216 of 2014

¶42

(v) In case the accused 2 & 7 or any of them violate any of condition Nos.(b) to (e), it is open to the investigating officer to move the learned magistrate (until committal of the case if any, and thereafter, before the learned Principal Sessions Judge concerned) for cancellation of the bail as held

¶43

in P.K Shaji Vs. State of Kerala (AIR 2006 SC 100).

¶44

Sd/-

¶45

THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE.

¶46

¶47

/True Copy/

¶48

P.A. to Judge

Rahul Govind v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul Govind 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

Sajan T Koshy Vs State of Kerala

Madhusoodanan Vs the State of Kerala

Paul Joseph Vs State of Kerala

Shameer K.A. Vs State of Kerala

Jithu Vs the State of Kerala

Niyad Vs State of Kerala