Allowed

Rajesh M. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC18 Jan 2016Bail Appl./137/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application by the second accused for offences under IPC Sections 487, 294(b), 341, 354 read with Section 34. Court held custodial interrogation not warranted and granted bail subject to conditions including appearance for interrogation. Subject matter involves assault and outraging modesty.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted to the petitioner subject to conditions of appearance for interrogation and executing a sum of ₹40,000 with two sureties.

Rajesh M. 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

MONDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016/28TH POUSHA, 1937

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 137 of 2016

¶6

CRIME NO. 1065/2015 OF KANJIRAMKULAM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶7

PETITIONER/2ND ACCUSED:

¶8

RAJESH M., AGED 34 YEARS, S/O.MANOHARAN, PEZHUMVILA VEEDU, KUNDAMON BHAGOM, PEYAD P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 573.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.B.JAYASURYA

¶10

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶11

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031. (REPRESENTING SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KANJIRAMKULAM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM)

¶12

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.T.Y.LALIZA

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18-01-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

mbr/

¶15

SUNIL THOMAS, J.

¶16

B.A.No. 137 of 2016

¶17

Dated this the 18^th day of January, 2016

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The petitioner is the 2^nd accused in Crime No.1065/2015 of Kanjiramkulam Police Station of offences punishable under Sections 487, 294(b), 341, 354 read with Section 34 of IPC.

¶20

The allegation of the de facto complainant is that, on 13.12.2015 at about 2.00p.m., the petitioner herein assaulted the de facto complainant and misbehaved towards the de facto complainant with the intention of outraging her modesty. It appears that, when the de facto complainant went to the house for handing over the key and for removing articles, then the dispute arose. Essentially, the allegation against the accused is sought to be established through the oral testimony of the eye witnesses.

¶21

Considering that fact, I do not feel that a custodial interrogation of the accused is warranted and

¶22

B.A.No. 137 of 2016

¶23

¶24

hence bail can be granted to the petitioner subject to the following conditions:

¶25

(a) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer within 10 days from today and offer for interrogation. Thereafter, he shall be released on executing a sum of `40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand only) with two sureties for the like sum each.

¶26

(b) He shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Saturdays between 09.00 a.m and 10.00 a.m. for a period of one month from the date of releasing him on the execution of bond as above.

¶27

(d) He shall not threaten, coerce or intimidate the witnesses and shall also not interfere with the course of investigation.

¶28

The bail application is allowed.

¶29

Sd/- SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE

¶30

//TRUE COPY//

¶31

P.A. TO JUDGE

¶32

Rajesh M. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh M. 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

Sreenath M.P Vs State

Vishnu Anandan Vs State of Kerala

Baveesh Vs State of Kerala

Vijayan K.R Vs State of Kerala

Sajimon Thomas Vs State of Kerala

Kunjumon Vs State of Kerala