Partly allowed

R.Renjith v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC1 Jun 2016Bail Appl./2813/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Ernakulam dismissed the pre-arrest bail application of accused Nos. 2 and 4 due to the necessity of custodial interrogation and potential obstruction of investigation. It allowed the bail of the third accused, who had surrendered, subject to strict conditions.

What did the court decide?

B.A.No. 2813 of 2016 dismissed; A accused must surrender. B.A.No. 3722 of 2016 allowed with strict conditions including sureties, security deposit, curfew, and reporting.

R.Renjith Vs State of Kerala — Narcotics (NDPS) | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JUNE 2016/11TH JYAISHTA, 1938

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 2813 of 2016 ()

¶6

CRIME NO.483/2016 OF KALLAMBALAM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED 3 AND 4:

¶8

1. R.RENJITH, AGED 22 YEARS, S/O.RAJENDRAN, RESIDING AT 3/720, PLAKKOTTU VEEDU, CHATHANPARA, MANAMBOOR PANCHAYAT, CHIRAYINKEEZHU, ATTINGAL-695 101,

¶9

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶10

2. RAHUL R., AGED 21 YEARS, S/O.RAJENDRAN, RESIDING AT 3/720, PLAKKOTTU VEEDU, CHATHANPARA, MANAMBOOR PANCHAYAT, CHIRAYINKEEZHU, ATTINGAL-695 101, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶11

BY ADVS.SRI.G.HARIHARAN SRI.PRAVEEN.H.

¶12

RESPONDENT(S):

¶13

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

¶14

2.SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KALLAMBALAM POLICE STATION, KALLAMBALAM P.O., PIN-695 605,

¶15

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶16

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.S.SREEJITH

¶17

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01-06-2016 ALONG WITH BA.3722/2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

mbr/

¶19

P.UBAID, J.

¶20

- - - - B.A.Nos. 2813 & 3722 of 2016

¶21

- - - - Dated this the 01^st day of June, 2016

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The petitioners in B.A.No. 2813 of 2016 are

¶24

accused Nos. 2 and 4 and the petitioner in B.A.No. 3722 of 2016 is the third accused in Crime No. 483 of 2016 of Kallambalam Police Station registered under Sections 143, 147, 148, 326, 307 read with Section 149 of IPC.

¶25

The prosecution case is that a gang of five persons including these petitioners assaulted the defacto complainant due to some other enmity or dispute and inflicted grievous injuries on his body with weapon, in an attempt on his life. During investigation, the third accused surrendered before the Police and he has been in judicial custody since 15.04.2016. He now seeks regular bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. The accused Nos. 2 and 4 seek prearrest bail on the apprehension of arrest as part of investigation.

¶26

B.A.Nos. 2813 & 3722 of 2016

¶27

-2-

¶28

The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail applications on the ground that custodial interrogation of accused Nos. 2 and 4 is absolutely necessary and that the third accused, if released on bail, will obstruct the investigation process.

¶29

On hearing both sides, and on perusal of the case diary, I find that the Police has collected the necessary materials as regards the third accused, who is alleged to have used the weapon, but the required materials are yet to be collected concerning the accused Nos. 2 and 4. Their custodial interrogation is felt absolutely necessary in this case. I find the possibility of investigation being obstructed by accused Nos. 2 and 4, if they are granted pre-arrest bail at this stage. They are allegedly the persons who had active involvement in the commission of offence, with the third accused, who inflicted the injuries on the body of the complainant. I am not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to accused Nos. 2 and 4.

¶30

B.A.Nos. 2813 & 3722 of 2016

¶31

-3-

¶32

However, as regards the third accused, I find that his continued detention in custody is not required in the present circumstances, where materials concerning him have already been collected by the police. A perusal of the medical records shows that the complainant had sustained very serious injuries. Any way, he has been in custody since 15.04.2016. In the present circumstances, I find that he can be granted bail on appropriate strict conditions, but the others' request for bail will have to be disallowed.

¶33

In the result B.A.No. 2813 of 2016 is

¶34

dismissed.

¶35

They will have to surrender before the Investigating Officer for interrogation.

¶36

B.A.No. 3722 of 2016 is allowed.

¶37

The petitioner therein, who is the third accused,

¶38

will be released on bail on his executing a bond with two solvent sureties for 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only)₹ each to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate having

¶39

B.A.Nos. 2813 & 3722 of 2016

¶40

-4-

¶41

jurisdiction. He is granted bail on condition that;

¶42

a)The petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer between 10.00 am to 11 a.m on all Saturdays for a period of three months or till the final report is filed.

¶43

b)The petitioner shall not enter the revenue village where the house of the defacto complainant is situated, and he shall not leave the limits of the Kallambalam Police Station till the whole investigation process is over.

¶44

c)The petitioner shall make a security deposit of

¶45

₹ 20,000/-(Rupess Twenty Thousand only) in the court below as a further condition for bail. The amount of security deposit will be released on conclusion of trial. It will be subject to forfeiture in case of absence during trial without sufficient reason.

¶46

B.A.Nos. 2813 & 3722 of 2016

¶47

-5-

¶48

d)The petitioner shall not in any manner influence or intimidate the witnesses and he shall not have any contact with the material witnesses directly or over telephone or otherwise.

Sd/- P.UBAID

JUDGE

//True copy//

P.A. to Judge

R.Renjith v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Renjith 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

P.J.Sebastian Vs State of Kerala

Deepu Vs State of Kerala

Shalu T. Vs State of Kerala

G.Vijayakumar Vs State of Kerala

Smitha Vs State of Kerala

Salam Vs State of Kerala