Allowed

Ranjeesh v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC19 Jan 2016Bail Appl./16/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application for an acid attack case under Sections 326(A), 307 IPC, the Court held that denial of bail cannot be based solely on the victim's hospitalization. Bail was granted with conditions to appear before the Investigation Officer and not interfere with witnesses. The Court ruled that substantial progress in investigation does not preclude bail in this instance.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- with two sureties, appearing before the Investigation Officer on Saturdays, and not threatening the victim or witnesses.

Ranjeesh 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

TUESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016/29TH POUSHA, 1937

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 16 of 2016 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 3380/2015 OF CHERTHALA POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 :

¶8

RANJEESH AGED 25 YEARS, S/O.RAGHU, NADUVILEZHATH HOUSE, ELANJI P.O. WARD VI, ELANJI PANCHAYATH, MUVATTUPUZHA ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.GEO PAUL

¶10

SRI.SANU MATHEW SRI.RADHIKA RAJASEKHARAN P. SRI.C.R.PRAMOD SRI.S.ASHOK KUMAR. SRI.LENIN P. SUKUMARAN

¶11

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT :

¶12

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY S.I. OF POLICE CHERTHALA POLICE STATION BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.

¶13

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. R. REMA

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19-01-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

¶16

SUNIL THOMAS, J.

¶17

B. A. No. 16 of 2016

¶18

Dated this the 19^th day of January, 2016

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

The petitioner was originally arrayed as the 1^st accused in Crime No.3380/2015 of Cherthala Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 326(A), 307 read with 34 of IPC.

¶21

The allegation of the prosecution is that, on 11.11.2015 at 7.00 p.m., while the defacto complainant was travelling in a scooty, the petitioner herein along with the 2^nd accused, in furtherance of their common intention to commit murder of the defacto complainant poured acid on her body which resulted in bodily injuries to the defacto complainant. The petitioner was arrested on 19.11.2015 and is in custody since then. He seeks bail.

¶22

When the matter was taken up, the learned Public Prosecutor on instructions submitted that the 2^nd accused has now been deleted and the petitioner is the sole accused therein. A report was shown, which indicates that the victim is still under treatment in the hospital. Though she was issued with notice to appear for recording her Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement, she has not appeared, since she is still under treatment.

¶23

¶24

B. A. No. 16 of 2016

¶25

Essentially, the prosecution is trying to establish that the unidentified person who poured the acid on the victim is the petitioner herein. The records indicate that the investigation has substantially progressed. The statements of the crucial witnesses have been recorded.

¶26

In the light of the above and having regard to the fact that the petitioner is in custody since 19.11.2015, I feel that bail cannot be denied to him on the mere ground that the defacto complainant is still undergoing treatment. This all the more so, since the records reveal that the victim had sustained 22% of burns on the posterior trunk, right arm and right leg. The petitioner is entitled for bail as follows:

¶27

(i) The petitioner 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 to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court. (ii) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigation Officer on all Saturdays between 9.00 am and 10.00 am till the

¶28

B. A. No. 16 of 2016

¶29

¶30

final charge is laid. (iii) He shall not threaten the defacto complainant, coerce or intimidate the witnesses and shall not in any manner interfere with the investigation.

¶31

Sd/-

¶32

SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE.

¶33

¶34

/True Copy/

¶35

P.A to Judge

Ranjeesh v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranjeesh 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

Majeed Vs State of Kerala

Anilkumar Vs State of Kerala

Suresh Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Nikul Vs State of Kerala

Sunilkumar Vs State of Kerala

Rakesh Vs State of Kerala