Allowed

Hariprasad v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC12 Feb 2016Bail Appl./141/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail application, the court granted anticipatory bail to a petitioner accused of attacking a complainant with an iron pipe. The order noted discrepancies between the accused's theory and the injured party's initial statement, directing the superior officer to investigate further before conditions were imposed.

What did the court decide?

Grants anticipatory bail on conditions of appearing for interrogation, executing a bond of Rs.50,000 with sureties, cooperating with inquiry into F.I.R. discrepancies, and regular appearances at the p

Hariprasad Vs State of Kerala — Anticipatory Bail | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/23RD MAGHA, 1937

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 141 of 2016

¶6

CRIME NO. 1345/2015 OF GURUVAYOOR POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.5:

¶8

HARIPRASAD, AGED 18 YEARS, S/O.MADANAN, EZHUTHUPURAKKAL HOUSE, ARTHAT VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.P.K.SAJEEV SRI.P.P.HARRIS

¶10

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶11

THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶12

BY ADV. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.T.Y.LALIZA

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12-02-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

mbr/

¶15

SUNIL THOMAS, J

¶16

B.A.NO.141 OF 2016

¶17

Dated this the 4^th day of February, 2016

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

The prosecution allegation is that on 16.09.2015 at

¶20

about 7.50 p.m, while the defacto complainant was proceeding on his bike, one Navas, Phinoj, Adarsh, Jishnu and another unnamed person intercepted him and attacked him. It was alleged that Phinoj, Adarsh and Jishnu hit on the head with an iron pipe. He has further stated that it was consequent to an earlier dispute between him and Navas and the attack was as a sequel to that. Pending the proceedings, it appears from the case diary that the first and second accused voluntarily appeared before the police and gave a statement that the accused Phinoj and Adarsh are not persons involved in the crime and the petitioner herein Hariprasad is the third accused therein and fourth accused is one Jishnu. It was further revealed that the first accused had used an iron pipe and the second accused has used a wooden stick. It appears from the case diary that further statement has

¶21

B.A.NO.141 OF 2016 2

¶22

been recorded from the injured in tune with the case spoken by the accused. There is a major deviation from the version spoken by the injured at the time of recording his First Information Statement and claimed to be in tune with the version of the accused. This is appears to be doubtful and the superior officer supervising this investigation officer is directed to look into this aspect and to file a statement on 12.2.2016. In the light of the this version now suggested by the prosecution, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner herein on the following conditions:-

¶23

(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,

¶24

he shall be released on bail on he executing a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two sureties for the like sum each.

¶25

(b) He shall not threaten, coerce or intimidate the de facto complainant or his

B.A.NO.141 OF 2016

witnesses.

(c ) He shall appear before the Investigating

¶30

Officer as and when called for and co-operate

¶31

with the investigation.

¶32

(d) He shall appear before the Investigation

¶33

Officer on all Mondays and Thursdays between 9.00 a.m. and 10.00 a.m. for a period of two months from the date of execution of bond.

¶34

Post on 12.02.2016

¶35

Issue copy to the Public prosecutor.

¶36

SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE.

¶37

R.AV

¶38

H/o.

Hariprasad v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hariprasad 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 Swalih Vs the State of Kerala

Nijas Vs State of Kerala

Noushad P.A. Vs State of Kerala

Ummar K.P Vs State of Kerala

Zacharia Varghese Vs State of Kerala

Sujeesh.K.S Vs State of Kerala