Allowed

Radhakrishnan M. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC11 Feb 2014Bail Appl./783/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court disposed of bail applications by accused Nos.106, 105 and 104 facing charges under IPC and PDPP Act for attack on Chief Minister. Court granted bail subject to surrender, interrogation, and reporting conditions.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted on bond of 25,000 each with two sureties subject to surrender for interrogation, reporting on Saturdays, and other conditions.

Radhakrishnan M. 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 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2014/22ND MAGHA, 1935

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 783 of 2014 () ------------------------------

¶6

CRIME NO. 1637/2013 OF KANNUR TOWN POLICE STATION, KANNUR

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.106:

¶8

RADHAKRISHNAN M. AGED 50 YEARS

¶9

S/O.KRISHNAN, NOOPURA, KARIYILA VAYAL MUZHAPILANGAD P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.I.V.PRAMOD

¶11

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT /STATE:

¶12

STATE OF KERALA

¶13

REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682031.

¶14

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR: ADV C RASHEED

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11-02-2014 ALONG WITH B A NO.916 OF 2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J.

¶17

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

¶18

B.A.Nos.783 and 916 of 2014

¶19

============================ Dated this the 11^th day of February, 2014

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

These applications are preferred by accused Nos.106, 105 and 104 respectively, of Crime No.1637 of 2013 of the Kannur Town Police Station for the offences punishable under Secs.143, 147, 148, 341, 353, 332, 324 and 307 r/w Sec.149 of the Indian Penal Code and Sec.3(1) of the PDPP Act for attack on the Chief Minister on 27.10.2013, causing damage to the Government vehicles, apprehend arrest and have filed this application.

¶22

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the applications. It is submitted that the petitioner in B.A.No.783 of 2014 is involved in two cases of 2012 and 2013 and the first petitioner in B.A.No.916 of 2014 is involved in one case.

¶23

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners also.

¶24

On hearing both sides, it appears to me that the role

¶25

attributed to these petitioners is members of the unlawful assembly which committed the alleged offences.

¶26

Having regard to the circumstances stated, I am inclined to think that custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not required. Hence I am inclined to grant relief to the petitioners but

¶27

B.A.Nos.783 and 916 of 2014

¶28

¶29

subject to conditions.

¶30

Resultantly these applications are allowed as under:

¶31

(i) Petitioners shall surrender before the officer investigating Crime No.1637 of 2013 of the kannur Town Police Station on 17.02.2014 at 10 a.m for interrogation.

¶32

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

¶33

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

¶34

(iv) On such production, petitioners shall be released on bail (if not required to be detained otherwise) on their executing bond for `25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five 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 petitioners.

¶36

(b) Petitioners shall report to the officer investigating Crime No.1637 of 2013 of the Kannur Town Police Station on every Saturday between 3 p.m and 5p.m for a period of two months or till final report is

¶37

B.A.Nos.783 and 916 of 2014

¶38

¶39

filed, whichever is earlier.

¶40

¶41

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

¶42

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

¶43

(f) In case the petitioners violate any of of condition Nos.(b) to (e), it is open to the investigating officer to move the learned magistrate (until committal if any, and thereafter before the learned Principal Sessions Judge concerned) for cancellation of the bail as held in P.K Shaji Vs. State of Kerala (AIR 2006 SC 100).

¶44

Sd/-

¶45

THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE.

¶46

Sbna

¶47

True Copy

¶48

P A to Judge

Radhakrishnan M. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Radhakrishnan M. 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

Shanmughan Vs State of Kerala

Manikandan.B Vs State of Kerala

M.Santhosh Vs State of Kerala

Shiju.P.T. Vs State of Kerala

Chacko Vs State of Kerala

Ajimon Vs State of Kerala through the Circle Inspector of Excise