Allowed

K.a.Valsarajan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC10 Mar 2016Bail Appl./1154/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed pre-arrest bail application under Section 438 CrPC filed by the first accused under sections 143, 147, 341, 332 and 149 IPC. Court held it was not a fit case for custodial interrogation despite prosecution submissions regarding minor injuries.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail upon execution of bond for Rs. 25,000 with two sureties, subject to six specific conditions regarding witness non-influence and availability for interrogation.

K.a.Valsarajan 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

THURSDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH 2016/20TH PHALGUNA, 1937

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 1154 of 2016 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 63/2016 OF KALPETTA POLICE STATION, WAYANAD DISTRICT

¶7

PETITIONER/1ST ACCUSED :

¶8

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

¶9

K.A.VALSARAJAN, AGED 51 YEARS,S/O ANDI, KELIKODE (HOUSE), NAIKETTY WAYANADU, (INFRASTRUCTURE MAINTENANCE WORKER, BSNL EXCHANGE, NOOLPUZHA, WAYANADU.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.JESWIN P.VARGHESE

¶11

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT :

¶12

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

¶13

STATE OF KERALA RERPESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM

¶14

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.N. SURESH

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10-03-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

¶17

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., J

¶18

¶19

B.A.1154 of 2016

¶20

- - - - Dated 10^th March, 2016

¶21

¶22

ORDER

¶23

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

¶24

2.The petitioner is the 1^st accused in crime No.63 of 2016 of Kalpetta police station. The aforesaid crime has been registered alleging offence punishable under Section 143, 147, 341, 332 read with Section 149 of the IPC.

¶25

3.The gist of the allegation is that on 1.2.2016, at about 11.30 am, the petitioner and others entered into the cabin of the de facto complainant, who is the Sub Divisional Engineer (SDE) of BSNL, Kalpetta, and assaulted him.

¶26

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

¶27

5.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

¶28

B.A.1154/16

¶29

¶30

would submit that the petitioner is the President of the All Kerala Ex-Servicemen Security Staff & Allied Service Association. In connection with the dismissal from service of an Infrastructure Maintenance Worker, the Organization, which is represented by the petitioner, had lodged a complaint before the General Manager. Later, the Assistant Labour Commissioner had convened conciliation talks and arrived at a settlement. It was directed that dismissed employee be reinstated back in service. When the aforesaid direction was not complied with by the de facto complainant, the petitioner and others had a conciliation talk with the defacto complainant. According to the learned counsel, it is with a view to implicate the petitioner in false crime, the instant crime has been registered with false allegations.

¶31

6.Countering the contentions of the learned counsel,

¶32

B.A.1154/16

¶33

¶34

the learned Public Prosecutor would submit that the wound certificate would reveal that minor injuries were sustained by the de facto complainant, thus probabilising the case of the prosecution.

¶35

7.After having considered the rival submissions, the nature and gravity of the allegations, the antecedents of the petitioner and the other circumstances, I am of the considered view that this

¶36

is not a fit case where custodial interrogation of the petitioner is warranted.

¶37

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

¶38

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

¶39

ii). The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or

¶40

B.A.1154/16

¶41

¶42

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.

¶43

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

¶44

iv). The petitioner shall not influence or intimidate the prosecution witnesses or attempt to tamper with the evidence for the prosecution.

¶45

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

¶46

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

¶47

This application is allowed as above.

¶48

Sd/-

¶49

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V. Judge

¶50

Mrcs/10.3.2016

¶51

//True Copy//

¶52

P.S.To Judge

K.a.Valsarajan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.a.Valsarajan 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

Mohammed Rafi Vs State of Kerala

Ajith Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Shinto Vs State of Kerala and Another

Praveen A.R Vs State of Kerala

Sheela Thomas Vs State of Kerala

Radhadevi Vs State of Kerala