Allowed

Sujith v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC22 Jan 2016Bail Appl./17/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is an order granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner in a case involving alleged assault causing fracture of the limb. The court permitted custodial interrogation but granted bail subject to surety conditions, deposit of a sum, and specific undertakings.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail allowed subject to conditions including appearance for interrogation, execution of a bond with two sureties of Rs.50,000 each, and a separate deposit of Rs.10,000.

Sujith 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

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

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 17 of 2016

¶6

*** CRIME NO. 326/2015 OF PATHANAMTHITTA POLICE STATION , PATHANAMTHITTA “CRIME NO.326/2015” IS CORRECTED AND SUBSTITUTED AS “CRIME NO.3744/2015”**

¶7

*** AS PER ORDER DATED 13.01.2016 IN CRL.M.A.NO.31 OF 2016.**

¶8

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED :

¶9

SUJITH, AGED 29 YEARS, S/O.MOHANAN NAIR, MUTTATH PUTHEN VEEDU, MATHUR.P.O, OMALLUR, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN SMT.K.J.ANITHA

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/STATE :

¶12

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

¶13

2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PATHANAMTHITTA POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-689 645.

¶14

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.T.Y.LALIZA

¶15

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

Msd.

SUNIL THOMAS, J.

=================

B.A.No.17 of 2016

¶20

=================

¶21

Dated this the 22^nd day of January, 2016

¶22

ORDER

¶23

Petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.3744 of 2015

¶24

of Pathanamthitta Police Station.

¶25

The allegation of the prosecution is that due to previous enmity towards the friend of the de facto complainant, petitioner attacked the de facto complainant in front of his house on 26.12.2015 at 7 p.m. It is alleged that the petitioner herein had used a stick resulting in fracture of the limb. The wound certificate indicates that the petitioner had sustained two injuries, one with swelling on the right fore arm.

¶26

Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner is involved in yet another crime. However, no dangerous weapon is seen used. Though fracture is not referred to in the wound certificate, the version of the witnesses refer to fracture of the limb. The weapon used has already been recovered by a separate mahazar. Petitioner is not involved in any other crime. Having regard to these facts, custodial interrogation of the petitioner may not be essential and bail can be granted to him subject to the

¶27

B.A.17/16

¶28

¶29

following conditions.

¶30

(i) Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer within ten days from today and shall undergo interrogation. If he is proposed to be arrested, 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.

¶31

(ii) He shall deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/(Rupees ten thousand only) within two weeks from today before the magistrate court which shall be an essential condition for granting bail.

¶32

(iii) It is made clear that the amount need only be remitted by the petitioner withing the above time and need not be simultaneous with the execution of the bond as above.

¶33

(iv) The disbursement of the above amount shall be decided by the jurisdictional court at the conclusion of the trial.

¶34

(v) He shall not get involved in any other identical offences and shall not threaten, coerce or intimidate the de facto complainant or his witnesses.

¶35

The anticipatory bail application is allowed as above.

¶36

Sd/-

¶37

SUNIL THOMAS Judge

¶38

Sbna/22/1/16

¶39

True Copy P A to Judge

Sujith v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sujith 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Akhilnath Vs State of Kerala

Aneesh Vs State of Kerala

Yahiya Vs State of Kerala

T J Thomas Vs State

A.Salam Vs the State of Kerala

Abdulrahman Vs State of Kerala