Allowed

Pradeep v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC2 Jun 2015Bail Appl./6980/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed a bail application for an accused charged under sections 294(b), 447 and 326 of IPC. The court granted anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. as the Public Prosecutor had no objection, noting the petitioner was a relative and neighbour and custodial interrogation was unnecessary.

What did the court decide?

Relief under Section 438 Cr.P.C. granted; petitioner released on bail upon executing a bond for Rs. 35,000 with two solvent sureties, subject to conditions including periodic reporting to the Investig

Pradeep Vs State of Kerala — Corruption | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF JUNE 2015/12TH JYAISHTA, 1937

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 6980 of 2014 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 1202/2014 OF KALLAMBALAM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANDAPURAM

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

PRADEEP AGED 19 YEARS S/O.PUSHPAN, KUNNUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU PUTHUSSERRYMUKKU P.O, KALLAMBALAM, KARAVARAM THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 605

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.M.DINESH

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶11

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 682031

¶12

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. RAJESH VIJAYAN

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02-06-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, J.

¶15

..................................................... Bail Application No. 6980 of 2014

¶16

Dated this the 2^nd day of June, 2015

¶17

ORDER

¶18

The petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No. 1202/2014 of Kallambalam Police Station registered for offences under Sections 294(b), 447 and 326 of IPC.

¶19

The prosecution allegation is that on 18-8-2014 at about 9.30 p.m., the petitioner trespassed into the courtyard of the house of the de facto complainant and attacked the de facto complainant with knife and iron rod. The de facto complainant lost one tooth in the attack with the iron rod.

¶20

I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and

¶21

the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶22

-: 2 :-

¶23

B.A. No. 6980 of 2014

¶24

The learned Public Prosecutor has no serious objection in granting the relief under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in favour of the petitioner. It has been submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioner is a close relative and neighbour of the de facto complainant. The Learned Public Prosecutor has further submitted that the petitioner is also not involved in any other offence of similar nature. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case including the submission of the learned Public Prosecutor, I am of the view that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary for the progress of investigation of the case. Therefore, I am inclined to grant the relief under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in favour of the petitioner.

¶25

In the result, this Application stands allowed and the respondent is directed to release the petitioner on bail, in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No. 1202 of 2014 of Kallambalam Police Station on condition of the petitioner executing a bond for Rs. 35,000/- (Rupees thirty five thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the

¶26

-: 3 :-

¶27

B.A. No. 6980 of 2014

¶28

satisfaction of the arresting officer, before whom the petitioner shall surrender within ten days from this date and subject to the following conditions:

¶29

i) The petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer on every Monday between 9 a.m. to 11 a.m. for six months or till the filing of the final report, whichever is earlier.

¶30

ii) The petitioner shall not influence or intimidate the witnesses or in any way tamper with the investigation.

¶31

iii) The petitioner shall not get involved in any offence while on bail.

¶32

Dated this the 2^nd day of June, 2015.

¶33

Sd/-B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE.

¶34

ani/

¶35

/true copy/

¶36

P.S. to Judge

Pradeep v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradeep 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

G.Mohanan Vs State of Kerala

Shaji Vs State of Kerala

Surendran Vs George Varkey

Sunny Vs State of Kerala

Jose Paul Vs Circle Inspector of Police, Angamaly

Ismail Vs State of Kerala