Allowed

Ashokan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC1 Jul 2014Bail Appl./4364/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under various Section 143, 147, 294(b), 326, and 506(ii) IPC read with Section 149 instant, the court considered the Petitioners request for bail. The allegations involved assault with weapons. The court observed that weapons were recovered and the accused had no prior cases, finding custodial interrogation unnecessary. It allowed the application subject to surrender for inte

What did the court decide?

Bail granted by surrender on 08.07.2014 for interrogation, release on Rs.20,000 bond each with joint deposit of Rs.15,000, and mandatory reporting.

Ashokan 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

TUESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JULY 2014/10TH ASHADHA, 1936

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 4364 of 2014 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 494/2014 OF PUDUNAGARAM POLICE STATION , PALAKKAD DISTRICT

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:-

¶8

1. ASHOKAN, AGED 45 YEARS,S/O.MALLU, ARAMANAKALAM, VILAYODI POST, CHITTUR TALUK.

¶9

2. BIJU, AGED 28 YEARS,S/O.VIJAYAN, ARAMANAKALAM, VILAYODI POST, CHITTUR TALUK.

¶10

3. VIJAYAN, AGED 52 YEARS,S/O.MALLU, ARAMANAKALAM, VILAYODI POST, CHITTUR TALUK.

¶11

4. PRAKASH, AGED 48 YEARS,S/O.MALLU, ARAMANAKALAM, VILAYODI POST, CHITTUR TALUK.

¶12

5. KRISHNAMOORTHY, AGED 57 YEARS, S/O.MALLU, ARAMANAKALAM, VILAYODI POST, CHITTUR TALUK.

¶13

BY ADVS.SRI.S.RAJEEV

¶14

SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN

¶15

RESPONDENTS/STATE:-

¶16

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

¶17

(CRIME NO.494/2014 OF PUDUNAGARAM POLICE STATION , PALAKKAD DISTRICT).

¶18

2. STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PUDUNAGARAM POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 678 503.(CRIME NO.494/2014 OF PUDUNAGARAM POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD DISTRICT).

¶19

R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.S.SREEJITH

¶20

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01-07-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

sts

¶22

THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J.

¶23

--------------------------------

¶24

Bail Appl. No.4364 of 2014

¶25

Dated this the 1^st day of July 2014

¶26

O R D E R

¶27

Petitioners are accused nos.1 to 5 in Crime No.494 of 2014 of the Pudunagaram Police station for the offences punishable under Secs.143, 147, 294(b), 326 and 506(ii) read with Sec.149 of the Indian Penal Code, apprehend arrest and have filed the application.

¶28

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the application. It is submitted that on 18.05.2014 at the relevant time, accused nos. 1 to 5 attacked the defacto complainant with iron pipe, spade, knife etc. and voluntarily caused hurt/grievous hurt.

¶29

Learned counsel submitted that the allegations are not true. Accused nos.1, 3 and 5 are brothers and the defacto complainant is their nephew. The 2^nd accused is son of the 3^rd accused. There was a civil dispute between the accused and the defacto complainant and while so, the

¶30

Bail Appl. No.4364 of 2014 2

¶31

alleged incident occurred. The dafacto complainant attacked some of the accused for which Crime No.495 of 2014 is registered.

¶32

On hearing both sides, it is revealed that the weapons allegedly used by these accused are recovered. These accused are not reported to be involved in any other case. Having regard to the relevant circumstances, I am inclined to think that custodial interrogation is not required. I am inclined to grant relief to these accused but subject to conditions and protecting the interest of the defacto complainant as well.

¶33

Application is allowed as under.

¶34

Accused nos.1 to 5 shall surrender

¶35

before the officer investigating Crime No.494 of 2014 of the Pudunagaram Police station on 08.07.2014 at 10.00 am for interrogation.

¶36

In case interrogation of accused nos.1 to

¶37

5 is not completed that day, it is open to the investigating officer to direct presence of them

¶38

Bail Appl. No.4364 of 2014 3

¶39

on any other day/days and time which they shall comply.

¶40

Accused nos.1 to 5 shall co-operate with investigation of the case.

¶41

In case arrest of accused nos.1 to 5 is recorded, they shall be produced before the jurisdictional magistrate the same day.

¶42

On such production learned magistrate shall release accused nos.1 to 5 on bail ( if not required to be detained otherwise) on their executing bond for Rs.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:

¶43

a) One of the sureties shall be a close relative of accused nos.1 to 5.

¶44

b) Accused nos.1 to 5 shall jointly deposit Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) in a Nationalised / Scheduled Bank/ Co-operative

¶45

Bail Appl. No.4364 of 2014 4

¶46

Society as the case may be (initially for a period of two years and renewable as per order of the learned magistrate) and produce the Fixed Deposit receipt before the learned magistrate while executing the bail bonds.

¶47

c) In case any of accused 1 to 5 is made liable to pay compensation to the defacto complainant or other injured if any, such compensation to the extent it possible could be realised from the amount in deposit.

¶48

d) Accused nos.1 to 5 shall report to the investigating officer on every alternate Saturday between 10.00 am and 12.00 pm for a period of two months or until filing of the final report, whichever is earlier.

¶49

e) Accused nos.1 to 5 shall report to the investigating officer as and when required for interrogation.

¶50

f) Accused nos.1 to 5 shall not get involved

¶51

Bail Appl. No.4364 of 2014 5

¶52

any offence during the period of this bail.

¶53

g) Accused nos.1 to 5 shall not influence or

¶54

intimidate the witnesses.

¶55

h) In case any of condition nos.(c) to (g) is violated, it is open to the investigating officer to file application before the learned magistrate for cancellation of the bail granted hereby, as held in

¶56

P.K. Shaji V. State of Kerala (AIR 2006 SC

¶57

100 ).

¶58

THOMAS P. JOSEPH JUDGE

¶59

Ashokan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashokan 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

Valsala Somanathan Vs State of Kerala

Thomas Kanhamala Vs State

Athul @ Manu Vs State of Kerala

Saseendra Babu Vs State of Kerala

Jayesh K.P Vs State of Kerala

Manoj Vs State of Kerala