Allowed

Ramachandran K v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC22 Jan 2016Bail Appl./112/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed a bail application filed by accused individuals who claimed no role in an alleged incident involving unlawful assembly, assault, and intimidation. The court held that custodial interrogation was unwarranted, especially since other accused were already on bail, and granted bail subject to standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

The petitioners were released on bail after interrogation on executing a bond for ₹25,000 each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum if arrested.

Ramachandran K 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 RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY 2016/2ND MAGHA, 1937

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 112 of 2016

¶6

CRIME NO. 1267/2015 OF PARIYARAM POLICE STATION , KANNUR DISTRICT

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NO.5 AND 7 :

¶8

1. RAMACHANDRAN K., AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.KAMARAN NAMBIAR, KULANGARAYATHU HOUSE, PADINJAREKKARA, KADANAPPALY P.O.

¶9

2. KAILASAN.K, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O.KANNAN, KUNIYIL HOUSE, PADINJAREKKARA, KADANAPPALLY P.O.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.I.V.PRAMOD

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT/STATE :

¶12

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 031.

¶13

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.S.HYMA

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22-01-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

Msd.

¶16

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, J.

¶17

B.A.No.112 of 2016

¶18

-------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 22^nd day of January, 2016

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

This petition is filed under S.438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking pre-arrest bail.

¶21

The petitioners herein are the accused Nos.4 & 7 in Crime No.1267/2015 of Pariyaram Police Station. The aforesaid crime has been registered for offence punishable under S.143, 147, 148, 452, 294(b), 354, 323, 427, 506(ii) r/w S.149 of the IPC.

¶22

The crux of the prosecution allegation is that, on

¶23

22.11.2015 at about 4.00 p.m., 7 named persons along with 33 persons who could be identified by sight formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and trespassed into the house of the de facto complainant, assaulted her and

¶24

B.A.No.112 of 2016 : 2 :

¶25

caused damage to the household articles. It is further alleged that the de facto complainant was intimidated and her modesty was outraged.

¶26

I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶27

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners

¶28

submitted that the accused Nos.1, 2 & 6 have already been enlarged on bail by this Court as per order dated 21.12.2015

¶29

in B.A.No.8109/2015. It is further submitted that the petitioners had absolutely no role to play in the aforesaid incident and they have been falsely implicated.

¶30

The learned Public Prosecutor did not controvert

¶31

the submission of the learned counsel that the accused

¶32

Nos.1, 2 & 6 have been enlarged on bail.

¶33

Having regard to the allegations levelled against

¶34

B.A.No.112 of 2016 : 3 :

¶35

the petitioners, the stage of the investigation and the fact that the other accused have been granted bail, I am of the considered view that the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is unwarranted in the facts and circumstances.

¶36

In the result, this application is allowed, but subject to the following conditions:

¶37

i). The petitioners shall be released on bail after interrogation on their executing a bond for 25,000/- each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum if they are arrested by the Police in connection with this case.

¶38

ii). The petitioners shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/ her from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer.

¶39

iii). The petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation as and when required by the investigating officer.

¶40

iv). The petitioners shall not influence or intimidate the prosecution witnesses or

¶41

B.A.No.112 of 2016 : 4 :

¶42

attempt to tamper with the evidence for the prosecution.

¶43

v). The petitioners shall not commit any similar offence while on bail.

¶44

vi). The petitioners shall not leave India without the previous permission of the jurisdictional magistrate.

¶45

vii). In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the jurisdictional magistrate shall be empowered to cancel the bail in accordance with law.

¶46

This application is allowed as above.

¶47

Sd/-

¶48

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, JUDGE.

¶49

¶50

[True copy]

¶51

P.A to Judge

Ramachandran K v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramachandran K 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

Raphi Antony Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

Kanagendran Vs State of Kerala

Korah John Vs State of Kerala

Rajan Vs the State of Kerala

Abdulla M. Vs State of Kerala

Muthalib Vs State of Kerala