Application for bail in an assault case involving serious injuries. The court noted inconsistency in arrest timelines and allowed bail on strict conditions pending investigation completion.
Enlarged on bail on executing a bond of Rs.50,000 each with two solvent sureties each for like sum.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
FRIDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF APRIL 2016/9TH VAISAKHA, 1938
Bail Appl..No. 2742 of 2016
CMP 1854/2016 of J.M.F.C-I.,SULTHANBATHERY CRIME NO. 22/2016 OF MEENANGADI POLICE STATION , WAYANAD
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NO.1 TO 4 (IN CUSTODY):
BY ADV. SRI.N.K.MOHANLAL
RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT NO.1:
BY ADV. SRI.P.V.VARGHESE (KANJIRAMATTOM) BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. JASMINE V.H.
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29-04-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V, J
ORDER
Application for regular bail.
B.A.2742/16
2
Annexure-A5 arrest memo in crime No.17 of
2016, would submit that the allegation that the allegation in the instant crime that that had assaulted the de facto complainant at 7.10 p.m. On 12.1.2016 cannot be believed. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the petitioners were arrested on 17.3.2016 and they are undergoing incarceration since then.
5.The learned Public Prosecutor would oppose the application for bail and would submit that it was the 1st accused who had brutally assaulted the de facto complainant and his friends. It is further submitted that the investigation in this case is not yet complete.
6.I have also heard the learned counsel appearing for the de facto complainant who has entered appearance. He would submit that very serious injuries were sustained by the de facto complainant. According to the learned
B.A.2742/16
3
counsel,releasing the petitioners on bail at this stage will not be conducive to the investigation.
7.I have taken note of the rival submissions. It appears prima facie that there is some justification in the contention raised by the learned counsel touching Annexure-A5. Annexure-A5 is the arrest memo in crime No.17 of 2016 of Kalpetta police station, and it would reveal that the 4th petitioner was arrested by the Sub Inspector of Kalpetta police station at 7.00 p.m on 12.1.2016. The 3rd petitioner has signed the memo as a witness .If that be the case, it cannot be believed that the petitioners 3 and 4 were present at 7.00 p.m on 12.1.2016 within the limits of Meenangadi police station, at Muttil, which is at a distance of 17 kms away from Kalpetta.
8.I also take note of the fact that the petitioners are undegoing incarceration from 16.3.2016.
B.A.2742/16
4
However, in view of the seriousness of the offence and taking note of the stringent apprehension expressed by the learned counsel appearing for the de facto complainant, I am of the considered view that the bail application can be allowed subject to stringent conditions.
9.In the result, this Bail Application is allowed and the petitioners shall be enlarged on bail on them executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the court below and subject to the following terms and conditions:-
(i).The petitioners shall report before the investigating officer in between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m. on all Tuesdays and Saturdays henceforth for a period of six months, or until final report is filed , which ever is earlier.
(ii) The petitioners shall surrender their passport if any forthwith. If they do not have a passport , they shall file an affidavit to that effect before the concerned court
B.A.2742/16
5
(iii) The petitioners shall not tamper with the evidence or influence witnesses. The petitioners shall not make any attempt to threaten or intimidate the defacto complainant or his family members .
(iv). The petitioners shall make himself available for interrogation as and when required by the investigating officer.
(v). The petitioners shall not involve in any offence while on bail.
In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the concerned Court is empowered to cancel the bail in accordance with the law
Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V. Judge
Mrcs/29.4.2016
//True Copy//
P.S.To Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the bail application needs to be allowed in light of prima facie inconsistencies in accusations and evidence.
Whether the seriousness of the offence and apprehension justifies allowing bail subject to stringent conditions.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Peter T.V
Sudeesh
Mathayian
Sukumaran
Sub Inspect of Police Meenangadi
State of Kerala
Raja Vijayaraghavan V
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
