Allowed

Dhanesh v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC3 Feb 2016Bail Appl./314/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bail application concerns the second accused in a robbery conspiracy case involving offences under various sections of the IPC. The court held that pre-arrest bail was appropriate as the accused's custody was not crucial for investigation. Bail was granted subject to conditions including interrogation attendance and financial bonds.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted on condition of appearing for interrogation within 10 days, appearing on Mondays for two months, and filing a bond of Rs.75,000 with two sureties.

Dhanesh 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 SUNIL THOMAS

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/14TH MAGHA, 1937

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 314 of 2016 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 2044/2015 OF KURUPPANPADI POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT

¶7

PETITIONER/2ND ACCUSED:

¶8

DHANESH, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O.PETHAMBARAN, KOZHIKOTTIL HOUSE, ALUVA WEST VILLAGE, SN PURAM BAGAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.P.K.VARGHESE SRI.K.S.ARUN KUMAR

¶10

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶11

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

¶12

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. R.REMA

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03-02-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

sts

¶15

SUNIL THOMAS, J.

¶16

B. A. No. 314 of 2016

¶17

Dated this the 3^rd day of February, 2016

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

The petitioner is the 2^nd accused in Crime No.2044/2015 of Kuruppanpadi Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 450, 394, 506 (ii), 399, 402, 395, 342, 120B IPC.

¶20

The allegation of the defacto complainant is that, on 18.10.2015, while he along with his friends were playing cards for consideration, at 1.30 p.m. some persons who had masked their face trespassed into the room and after undressing the defacto complainant and his friends, threatened them with chopper and other weapons and robbed them of their valuables. It is alleged that mobile phones, gold ornaments and cash worth Rs.2,86,350/were taken away. Complaint was laid on 22.10.2015 by the defacto complainant. Crime was registered, whereupon some of the accused have been arrested. Now the allegation against the 2^nd accused is that, on a previous day, namely 17.10.2015, all the accused including the petitioner herein had met and conspired to commit robbery. It appear that, the vehicles used have been identified and the accused Nos.1, 4, 5, 6, 9 and 10 have been arrested. The investigation has substantially progressed. The

¶21

B. A. No. 314 of 2016

¶22

¶23

allegation against the petitioner herein is one of conspiracy, which evidently is done in a secrecy and had to be gathered from other evidence, oral testimony of others and also from the attending circumstances. The custody of the petitioner herein may not be as such crucial in such a situation.

¶24

Having regard to these, I feel that this is not a fit case in which the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is essential and pre-arrest bail can be granted to the petitioner on the following conditions:

¶25

(i) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigation Officer within 10 days from today and shall undergo interrogation. Thereafter if he is

¶26

proposed to be arrested, he shall be released on bail, on he executing a bond for a sum of Rs.75,000/- (Rupees seventy five thousand only) with two sureties for the like sum each.

¶27

(ii) He shall appear before the Investigation Officer on all Mondays between 9.00 a.m. and 10.00 a.m. for a period of two months from the date of execution of the bond as above.

¶28

B. A. No. 314 of 2016

¶29

¶30

(iii) He shall not threaten, coerce or intimidate the defacto complainant or his witnesses.

¶31

Sd/-

¶32

SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE.

¶33

/true copy/

¶34

P. A. to Judge

¶35

Dhanesh v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhanesh 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

Raju @ Kochumon Vs State of Kerala

Surendran.K.M Vs the State of Kerala

Ramsheed Vs State of Kerala

Navas Vs State of Kerala

Subin Philip Vs State of Kerala

Sandhyavu Rijesh @ Rijeesh Vs State of Kerala