Allowed

Sreejith v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC4 Jul 2014Bail Appl./4165/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a bail application filed by an accused apprehending arrest in a case involving robbery and extortion. The court, finding custodial interrogation not immediately required in the absence of prior sword threat allegations in the FIR, grants bail subject to specific conditions including surrender for interrogation, reporting before investigators, and security.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted on ₹20,000 bond with two sureties subject to conditions for interrogation, reporting, and conduct.

Sreejith Vs State of Kerala — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF JULY 2014/13TH ASHADHA, 1936

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 4165 of 2014

¶6

CRIME NO. 160/2013 OF VALLIKUNNAM POLICE STATION , ALAPPUZHA

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO 5:

¶8

SREEJITH, AGED 24 YEARS, S/O.SIVANKUTTY, SREEVILASOM, KATTANAM, PALLICKAL P.O, ALAPPUZHA.

¶9

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

¶10

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS:

¶11

STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLICPROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA.

¶12

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.RASHEED

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04-07-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

¶15

THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J.

¶16

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

¶17

B.A.No.4165 of 2014

¶18

============================ Dated this the 04^th day of July, 2014

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

Petitioner is the 3^rd accused in Crime No.160 of 2013 of the Vallikkunnam Police Station for the offences punishable under Secs.365, 395 and 506(ii) r/w Sec.34 of the Indian Penal Code, Sec.27 of the Arms Act, apprehends arrest and has filed this application.

¶21

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the application. It is submitted that the petitioner, along with others came in the car driven by the petitioner, waylaid the de facto complainant who was riding on the pillion of a motor cycle which the 6^th accused was riding, threatened the de facto complainant with sword and forcibly took him in the car demanding ransom.

¶22

Learned counsel submits that the petitioner is falsely implicated at the instance of the then Circle Inspector of Police, Mavelikkara. It is submitted that the de facto complainant in his first information statement did not have a case that he was threatened with sword by anybody and alleged use of the sword was brought in through the confession statement allegedly given by the 6^th accused. It is also submitted that even in the subsequent

¶23

B.A.No.4165 of 2014

¶24

¶25

statement of the de facto complainant, he only said that he was threatened with a sword but he did not mention the petitioner as the person concerned.

¶26

I have gone through the CD file and find that in the first information statement, the de facto complainant has no case that he was threatened with a sword and when questioned further, he is seen to have said that he was threatened with a sword but without mentioning the person who did so.

¶27

Having regard to the relevant circumstances, I am inclined to think that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required. Hence I am inclined to grant relief but subject to conditions so that investigation is not affected.

¶28

The application is allowed as under:

¶29

(i) Petitioner shall surrender before the officer investigating Crime No.160 of 2013 of the Vallikkunnam Police Station on 10.07.2014 at 10 a.m for interrogation.

¶30

(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 as may be specified by him which the petitioner shall comply.

¶31

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

¶32

(iv) In case arrest of the petitioner is

¶33

B.A.No.4165 of 2014

¶34

¶35

recorded, he shall be produced before the jurisdictional magistrate the same day.

¶36

(v) On such production the petitioner shall be released on bail (if not required to be detained otherwise) on his executing bond for `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:

¶37

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

¶38

(b) Petitioner shall report to the officer investigating the case on all alternate Saturday between 10a.m and 12p.m for a period of two months or till final report is filed, whichever is earlier.

¶39

¶40

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

¶41

(e) Petitioner shall not intimidate or influence the witnesses.

¶42

(f) In case the petitioner violates 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

¶43

B.A.No.4165 of 2014

¶44

¶45

Principal Sessions Judge concerned) for cancellation of the bail as held in P.K Shaji Vs. State of Kerala (AIR 2006 SC 100).

¶46

Sd/-

¶47

THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE.

¶48

Sbna

¶49

True Copy

¶50

P A to Judge

Sreejith v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sreejith 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

Shameer K.A. Vs State of Kerala

Jithu Vs the State of Kerala

Rahul Govind Vs State of Kerala

Rajiv Vs State of Kerala

Regi Joseph Vs State of Kerala

Bhamini Vs State of Kerala