Allowed

Rickson v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC18 Feb 2016Bail Appl./1084/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court granted bail to the first accused in a case involving voluntarily causing hurt. The incident arose from a spur-of-the-moment quarrel where stones were pelted. The court held that custodial interrogation was not essential as the charge relied on oral testimony of eye witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted on conditions to appear for interrogation, appear weekly, not intimidate witnesses, and not commit further offences.

Rickson Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/29TH MAGHA, 1937

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 1084 of 2016

¶6

CRIME NO. 14/2016 OF THUMBA POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/IST ACCUSED:

¶8

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

¶9

RICKSON, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O. ALPHONSE, RESIDING AT T.C. 81/276, VALIYAVELI P.O., TRIVANDRUM.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.M.RAJENDRAN NAIR SMT.M.SANTHY

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT/STATE:

¶12

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, THROUGH THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THUMBA POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶13

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.REMA R.

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18-02-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

msv/

¶16

SUNIL THOMAS, J

¶17

B.A.NO.1084 OF 2016

¶18

Dated this the 18^th day of February, 2016

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

The petitioner is the first accused in Crime no,14/2016 of Thumba Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 324 & 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶21

The petitioners are the children of the sister of the defacto complainant. On 02.01.2016, at 7.30 pm, the petitioner herein along with his brother went to the house of the defacto complainant and picked up a quarrel with the son of the defacto complainant regarding a monetary transaction. Since that entered into an altercation between both, the relatives pulled them apart and the petitioner herein and his brother were taken out of the compound. From there, the petitioner herein is alleged to have thrown stones aimed at the son of the defacto complainant. One stone hit on the son of the defacto complainant. He sustained injuries and taken to the hospital.

¶22

The hospital record indicates that there was a shallow skin wound 1 x 0.6 cm with a depth of 2mm at the

¶23

B.A.NO.1084 OF 2016 2

¶24

junction of middle and lateral 1/3 of left eyebrow and blunt trauma of the left eye with periocular edima, conjuctival hemorrage. The ultimate impression was that there was a blunt trauma of the left eye. It appears that one of the stones which was pelted at the injured had hit the eye of the injured. It is evident that the incident occurred on the spur of the moment and they came unarmed. It was not a calculated premeditated attack. Having regard to these facts, I feel that a custodial interrogation is not essential, more particularly for the reason that the allegation against the petitioner is to be proved by the oral testimony of the eye witnesses. Hence I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner on the following conditions:-

¶25

(a) Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer within ten days from today and shall undergo interrogation. Thereafter, if he is proposed to be arrested, he shall be released on bail on he executing a bond for a sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand only) with two sureties for

B.A.NO.1084 OF 2016

the like sum each.

(b) He shall appear before the

¶30

investigation officer on all Saturdays between 9 am and 10 am for a period of one month from the date of execution of the bond.

¶31

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

¶32

(d) He shall not get involved in any other identical offence.

¶33

sd/- SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE.

¶34

R.AV

¶35

//True Copy//

¶36

PA to Judge

Rickson v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rickson 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

Shuhaib Vs the Circle Inspector of Excise

Ajaya Khosh Vs State of Kerala

Varkey Vs State of Kerala

Prakash Vs State of Kerala

Prabhukesh @ Kuttan Vs State of Kerala

Rajendran Vs State of Kerala