Dismissed

Haneeswaran.M.v v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC21 Jun 2016Bail Appl./2090/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application by two accused charged with offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 34 IPC and related enactments for assault causing grievous injury, the High Court refused pre-arrest bail due to the nature of injuries and necessity for interrogation. The applicants were ordered to surrender for interrogation. A subsequent regular bail application to be filed before the Magistrate

What did the court decide?

Application for pre-arrest/anticipatory bail dismissed; petitioners directed to surrender for interrogation.

Haneeswaran.M.v 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 P.UBAID

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JUNE 2016/31ST JYAISHTA, 1938

¶5

Bail Appl. No.2090 of 2016 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 92/2016 OF BEKAL POLICE STATION, KASARGOD

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUES NOS.1 & 2:

¶8

HANEESWARAN.M.V, AGED 38,

¶9

S/O. KUNHIRAMAN,

¶10

PALETHARA, THIMIRI P.O.,

¶11

CHERUVATHUR, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

¶12

NITHIN.T, AGED 31,

¶13

S/O. SUKUMARAN, MALOOTTI HOUSE,

¶14

THEERTHANKARA, PADANAKAD P.O.,

¶15

KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

¶16

BY ADV. SRI.S.VISHNU (TRIPUNITHURA)

¶17

RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT:

¶18

STATE OF KERALA,

¶19

REPRESENTED BY THE S.H.O. BEKAL POLICE STATION, (CRIME NO.92/16) REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶20

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.REMA R.

¶21

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

KRJ

P.UBAID, J

B.A No.2090 of 2016

Dated this the 21^st day of June, 2016

¶26

ORDER

¶27

The petitioners herein are accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.92 of 2016 of Bekal Police Station, Kasaragod, initially registered under Sections 143, 147, 148, 452, 341, 323 and 324 r/w. Section 149 IPC. Now the investigation is proceeding under Section 326 IPC also.

¶28

The prosecution case is that on 17.02.2016 at about 9 PM, these petitioners and six others, in prosecution of the object of the unlawful assembly formed by them to attack the de facto complainant, assaulted him and inflicted simple and grievous injuries on his body.

¶29

On a perusal of the wound certificate in the name of the de facto complainant, I find that he had sustained a depressed fracture of the lateral condylar of the left tibia in the alleged incident. The accused Nos.3 to 8 are yet to be identified and arrested. These petitioners now seek pre-arrest bail on the apprehension of arrest.

¶30

In the nature of the materials involved, including the grievous injuries sustained by the victims, I feet it not appropriate to grant them pre-arrest bail. However, the petitioners can very well

¶31

BA.2090/16 -:2:-

¶32

surrender before the Investigating Officer for necessary interrogation, and after such interrogation, the request for regular bail can be considered appropriately by the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction. I am not inclined to release the petitioners under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. Their interrogation is felt absolutely necessary for the collection of some materials concerning them, their identity, their involvement in the alleged incident, and also the weapons allegedly used by them and others.

¶33

In the result, the application for bail is disposed of as follows:

¶34

(a) The petitioners will surrender before the Investigating Officer, if they so opt, between 9 AM and 10 AM on any day within seven days from this date, for necessary interrogation.

¶35

(b) After such interrogation, the Investigating Officer will produce the petitioners before the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction on the same day before 4 PM.

¶36

(c) In case application for regular bail is filed by the petitioners, the same shall be decided judiciously by the learned Magistrate on the same day, on merits.

¶37

Sd/- P.UBAID, JUDGE

¶38

krj/21.6.16

¶39

//true copy//

¶40

P.A to Judge

Haneeswaran.M.v v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Haneeswaran.M.v 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

Pushpakaran Vs State of Kerala

Aji.T.B Vs the State of Kerala

Vinod Vs State of Kerala

Prathyush Vs Sub Inspector of Police

Suryalayam Reveendran Vs State of Kerala

Shakthil T.T Vs State of Kerala