Partly allowed

Chandu v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC15 Feb 2016Bail Appl./1010/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under IPC sections 323, 324, 326, and 34 regarding assault with rafters, the High Court of Kerala dismissed bail for accused 2 and 3 but granted limited bail to accused 1 and 4 subject to reporting restrictions.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed for petitioners 1 and 4 subject to interrogation, reporting, and non-interference conditions within 40,000 rupees bond.

Chandu Vs State of Kerala — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

¶4

MONDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/26TH MAGHA, 1937

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 1010 of 2016

¶6

CRIME NO. 2892/2015 OF ADOOR POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED 1-4:

¶8

1. CHANDRU, AGED 22 YEARS, S/O.ANIL, RESIDING AT CHANDRU BHAVANAM,

¶9

ELAMANOOR P.O., ENADIMANGALAM VILLAGE,

¶10

ADOOR TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶11

2. JINOB @ CHINNU, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O.VIJAYAN, RESIDING AT VENGAVILAYIL HOUSE,

¶12

MULAMPPU COLONY, ELAMANOOR P.O.,

¶13

ENADIMANGALAM VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶14

3. RAJEEV @ KANNAN, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O.RAJAN, RERSIDING AT RAJESH BHAVANAM,

¶15

MULAMPPU COLONY, ELAMANOOR P.O.,

¶16

ENADIMANGALAM VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶17

4. NITHEESH, AGED 23 YEARS, S/O.SOMAN, RESIDING AT CHARUVILAYIL, ELAMANOOR P.O.,

¶18

ENADIMANGALAM VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶19

BY ADV. SRI.MANU RAMACHANDRAN

¶20

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT/STATE:

¶21

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ADOOR POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM.

¶22

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.R.REMA

¶23

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15-02-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

mbr/

¶25

SUNIL THOMAS, J.

¶26

B.A.No.1010 of 2016

¶27

Dated this the 15^th day of February, 2016

¶28

ORDER

¶29

The petitioners are the accused nos. 1 to 4 in Crime No.2892/2015 of Adoor Police Station for offences punishable under Sections323, 324, 326 and 34 of IPC.

¶30

The allegation of the prosecution is that on 05.01.2015 at 8.30 p.m., the accused attacked the de facto complainant. It is alleged that the 1^st , 2^nd and 3^rd accused used rafters to cause bodily injuries on the de facto complainant. The presence of the 4^th petitioner is also referred to that no specific overt act is attributed to them.

¶31

The wound certificates indicate that three persons had sustained injuries. One person had sustained a fracture on the radius, another person had sustained abrasion near the eye brow and abrasion on the side of the chest. The 3^rd person had sustained abrasion on the left side of scalp. Specific overt act and use of rafters is attributed to accused no. 2 and 3. Though in the FIS, the

¶32

B.A.No.1010 of 2016 2

¶33

name of the 1^st accused is referred, but he has not used any weapon. However, one of the injured in a subsequent statement to the police has clarified that the 1^st accused had hit him with a rafter on the neck. However, the corresponding injuries are not seen on the neck of any of the three persons.

¶34

Having regard to these facts, I feel that the accused nos. 1 and 4 stand on a different footing from that of the other petitioners, for the purpose of granting bail is concerned. Hence, I am inclined to grant bail in part as follows:

¶35

The pre arrest bail application of the petitioners 2 and 3 (accused nos. 2 and 3) stand dismissed.

¶36

The pre arrest bail application of the petitioners nos. 1 and 4 (accused nos. 1 and 4) is allowed in part as follows:

¶37

(a) Petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer within ten days from today and shall undergo interrogation.

¶38

B.A.No.1010 of 2016 3

¶39

Thereafter, if they are proposed to be arrested, they shall be released on bail on each executing a bond for a sum of Rs. 40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand only) with two sureties for the like sum each.

¶40

(b) They shall not threaten, coerce or intimidate the de facto complainant or his witnesses.

¶41

(c ) They shall appear before the Investigation Officer on all Mondays and Fridays between 9.00 a.m. and 10.00 a.m. for a period of two

¶42

months from the date of execution of bond.

¶43

The bail application is allowed in part as above.

¶44

Sd/- SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE

¶45

¶46

//TRUE COPY//

¶47

P.A. TO JUDGE

Chandu v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandu 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hariprasad Vs State of Kerala

Ummar K.P Vs State of Kerala

Zacharia Varghese Vs State of Kerala

Pramod K Vs State of Kerala

Kusalaksha Vs Station House Officer

Suresh @ Kopra Suresh Vs State of Kerala