Dismissed

Rahul.M. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC12 Jul 2016Bail Appl./3129/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed an application for pre-arrest bail filed by two accused charged with serious offences including attempted murder. The court held that custodial interrogation was necessary and that the accused could influence witnesses, constituting a non-fit case for anticipatory bail.

What did the court decide?

Application for pre-arrest bail dismissed; accused required to surrender for interrogation before seeking regular bail.

Rahul.M. Vs State of Kerala — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JULY 2016/21ST ASHADHA, 1938

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 3129 of 2016

¶6

CRIME NO. 2287/2015 OF VAIKOM POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM ---------------

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

1. RAHUL.M, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O.RAMACHANDRAN, KIZHKAKEMALIYEL HOUSE, UDYANAPURAM.P.O, VADAKKEMURI VILLAGE, VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶9

2. PRAVEEN.K.R. @ SEBAN,AGED 31 YEARS, S/O.RAVINDRAN, KARIMPAKUZHIYIL HOUSE, KADUTHURUTHY VILLAGE, VELLASHERIKARA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.J.ABHILASH

¶11

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶12

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

¶13

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.LALIZA T.Y.

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12-07-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

P. UBAID, J.

B.A.No.3129 of 2016

Dated this the 12^th day of July, 2016

¶19

The petitioners herein seek pre-arrest bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the apprehension of arrest and custodial harassment in connection with Crime No.2287/2015 of the Vaikom Police Station, registered under Sections 143, 144, 146, 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 324, 341 and 308 IPC. They are the accused Nos.1 and 2 in the crime.

¶20

The prosecution case is that at about 8 pm on 27.12.2015, these petitioners and the co-accused assaulted the defacto complainant and his friend, and inflicted injuries on their body with weapons like sword, with the full knowledge of consequence that such injuries may cause death. The application for pre-arrest bail filed by the 3^rd accused was dismissed by this Court on 13.06.2016. The prosecution records reveal that the complainant and his friend had sustained severe injuries in the alleged incident. The 3^rd accused was denied pre-arrest bail by this Court on the finding that custodial interrogation of the

¶21

¶22

B.A.No.3129 of 2016

¶23

petitioner is necessary.

¶24

This application for pre-arrest bail is opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor on the ground that investigation is at the preliminary stage, that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is absolutely necessary as part of investigation, and that, if the accused is now released, he will definitely obstruct the

¶25

proper and effective investigation.

¶26

On hearing both sides, and on a perusal of the materials including the case diary and the report of the investigating officer, I find that some more things remain to be done by the police as part of investigation, and some more witnesses remain to be questioned. I find that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is absolutely necessary as part of investigation in this case, and I find that the accused will influence or intimidate the witnesses, if they are now granted pre- arrest bail. However, if the petitioner so opts, he can surrender before the investigating officer or before the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction. After necessary interrogation, the request for regular bail can be considered by the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction. In the particular facts and

¶27

¶28

B.A.No.3129 of 2016

¶29

circumstances of the case including the seriousness and gravity of the offence alleged, and also the stage of investigation, I find that this is not a fit case where the discretionary relief of prearrest bail can be granted.

¶30

In the result, this application for anticipatory bail is

dismissed.

Sd/P. UBAID, JUDGE

// True Copy // P.A. to Judge

Rahul.M. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul.M. 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

Anilkumar @ Anil Vs State of Kerala

P.Rajeev Vs State of Kerala

C.v.Rappai Vs State of Kerala

G.Srinivasan Vs State of Kerala

Sukumaran T.V. Vs State of Kerala

Ibrahim Vs State of Kerala