Disposed

Binoj v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC30 May 2016Bail Appl./3106/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a pre-arrest bail application, directing petitioners to surrender for interrogation. The case was remanded to the competent Magistrate to decide on further bail or remand based on investigation needs and independent judicial satisfaction.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners directed to surrender for interrogation; matter remitted to Magistrate for decision on remand or bail based on investigation outcome.

Binoj 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

MONDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF MAY 2016/9TH JYAISHTA, 1938

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 3106 of 2016

¶6

CRIME NO. 572/2016 OF CHATHANNOOR POLICE STATION, KOLLAM

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED (RANK NOT KNWON):

¶8

1. BINOJ.A.K., AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.ABRAHAM, BINOJ BHAVAN, NEDUMBANA.P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶9

2. SILOSHMON.A., AGED 33 YEARS, S/O.ALOTIOUS, MOONUPURACKAL NEDUMBANA P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.M.L.SURESH KUMAR

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/STATE:

¶12

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM.

¶13

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.REMA. R

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30-05-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

P.UBAID, J.

~~~~~~~~~~

B.A No.3106 of 2016

¶19

~~~~~~~~~~~

¶20

Dated this the 30^th May, 2016

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

The petitioners herein seek pre arrest bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the apprehension of arrest in connection with Crime No.572 of 2016 of the Chathannur Police Station registered under Sections 143, 147, 148, 324, 332, 308, 427 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioners are the accused Nos.5 and 6.

¶23

The prosecution case is that, at about 00.30 a.m on 25.3.2016, these petitioners and others assaulted two Police Constables engaged in law and duty in connection with a music programme, and they inflicted simple injuries on their body, when the two police constables intervened in a fight between two groups. It is submitted that the accused Nos.3 and 4 were arrested during investigation, and later they were released on bail. These petitioners are two among the identifiable persons mentioned in the F.I.R. The complaint made by the police

¶24

B.A No.3106 of 2016

¶25

¶26

constable shows that the constables were first assaulted by two persons, and later somebody joined the two. These petitioners are not the persons who first assaulted the police constables. It appears that they were identified as two among the identifiable persons mentioned in the F.I.R . Still their interrogation is necessary to collect some materials concerning them. Whether they are the persons who assaulted the police officers, or what act of offence was done by them, are all matters to be ascertained on proper interrogation. For this, they will have to surrender before the Investigating Officer. It appears that the accused Nos.1 to 4 are the persons who mainly assaulted on the police officers. Anyway, let the factual be looked into by the learned Magistrate. It is submitted that the weapon of offence stands already recovered by the police.

¶27

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

¶28

a) The petitioners will surrender before

¶29

the investigating officer before 9 am. on any day within twenty days from this date for the purpose of

¶30

B.A No.3106 of 2016

¶31

¶32

interrogation as part of investigation.

¶33

b) After necessary interrogation, the investigating officer will produce the petitioners before the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction by 4 pm. on the date of arrest itself.

¶34

c) If the learned Magistrate is satisfied that the interrogation as part of investigation is over, and that there is no necessity of detention of the petitioners in custody, the petitioners can be released on appropriate conditions.

¶35

d) If it is found otherwise that the petitioners did not in fact co-operate, or that their detention is necessary for a reasonable period, for effective investigation, and for collection of the materials which the petitioners did not disclose during investigation, the learned Magistrate can remand the petitioners to judicial custody. The learned Magistrate will have to take decision on the said aspect independently and judiciously, without being influenced or carried away by police report. In

¶36

B.A No.3106 of 2016

¶37

¶38

case of remand, the application for regular bail will be considered by the learned Magistrate judiciously, after necessary materials are collected as part of

investigation.

Sd/P.UBAID JUDGE

/True copy/ P.S to Judge

Binoj v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Binoj 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

Kappadan Puthiya Purayil Sujesh Vs State of Kerala

Thaju Vs State of Kerala

Prajwal Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Anson O.J. Vs State of Kerala

Prajith Rich Vs State of Kerala

Gopi Vs State of Kerala