Allowed

Sivaprasad v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC5 Aug 2016Bail Appl./3344/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted pre-arrest bail to the petitioners in a criminal case involving assault, noting suspicious inconsistencies in the prosecution's statements regarding the number of accused and severity of injuries, while imposing strict reporting and area restraint conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners ordered to be released on bail on executing a bond with sureties, conditioned to report weekly, not leave the designated limits, and not intimidate witnesses.

Sivaprasad 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

FRIDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF AUGUST 2016/14TH SRAVANA, 1938

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 3344 of 2016

¶6

CRIME NO. 111/2016 OF OTTAPALAM POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED 1 AND 2:

¶8

1. SIVAPRASAD, S/O. RADHAKRISHNAN,AGED 27 YEARS, KATHIRPARMBU HOUSE, MANGALAM, LAKKIDI PERUR VILLAGE, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶9

2. SURESH, S/O CHATHU, AGED 33 YEARS, KATHIRPARAMBU HOUSE,MAMANGALAM, LAKKIDI PERUR VILLAGE,OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN SMT.C.SEENA RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT:

¶11

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTING STATION HOUSE OFFICER, OTTAPALAM POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD DISTRICT,REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN-682031.

¶12

*** ADDITIONAL R2 IMPLEADED 2. RATHNADASAN K., AGED 44 YEARS, S/O.MADHAVAN, KACHAMKUNNUMAL HOUSE, KUNDUKAD, PUTHOOR, AKALOOR (PO), LAKKIDIPERUR VILLAGE, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. * IS IMPLEADED AS ADDL. 2ND RESPONDENT AS PER ORDER DTD.8.7.2016 IN CRL.MA.NO.6619/2016 IN BA.3344/2016. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.REMA R.**

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05-08-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

msv/

¶15

P.UBAID, J.

¶16

- - - - B.A.No. 3344 of 2016

¶17

- - - - Dated this the 05^th day of August, 2016

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The petitioners herein seek pre-arrest bail under

¶20

Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the apprehension of arrest and custodial harassment in connection with Crime No. 111 of 2016 of the Ottappalam Police Station, registered under Sections 323, 324 and 308 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The crime was initially registered against four persons. Now there is report that there are only two accused in the crime, and they are the petitioners herein.

¶21

The prosecution case is that at about 8.30 p.m. on 31.1.2016, the petitioners assaulted the defacto complainant, and inflicted injuries on his body with an iron pipe, with the knowledge of consequence that the injuries may cause death.

¶22

B.A.No. 3344 of 2016

¶23

-2-

¶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 petitioners is absolutely necessary as

¶25

part of investigation, and that if the accused are now released, they will definitely obstruct the proper and effective investigation.

¶26

On a perusal of the case diary, I find something suspicious as regards the persons who actually inflicted injuries on the body of the complainant. The wound certificate in the name of the complainant shows that he had not sustained any serious injury in the alleged incident. It appears that Section 308 of IPC was incorporated on the basis of some hypothetical statement. What is at the most revealed is an offence under Section 324 of IPC. In the FI statement, the complainant has implicated four persons, but when he was further questioned under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., he implicated only two persons. This means that he

¶27

B.A.No. 3344 of 2016

¶28

-3-

¶29

does not have consistency regarding the persons involved in the case.

¶30

In the result, this petition for pre-arrest bail is allowed. The petitioners are ordered to be released on bail on their executing a bond with two solvent sureties for ₹40,000/- (Rupees Fourty Thousand only) each to the satisfaction of the arresting officer or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction, in case of their arrest in connection with Crime No. 111 of 2016 of the Ottappalam Police Station. Bail is granted on condition that

¶31

a) The petitioners shall report before the Investigating Officer between 10 a.m. and 11 a.m. on all Wednesdays for a period of two months.

¶32

b) The petitioners shall not leave the limits of Ottappalam Police Station for a period of two months.

¶33

c) The petitioners shall not in any manner influence or intimidate the material

¶34

B.A.No. 3344 of 2016

¶35

-4-

¶36

witnesses, or 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

B.A.No. 3344 of 2016

-5-

P.UBAID, J.

B.A.No. 3344 of 2016

- - - - Dated this the 22^nd day of June, 2016

¶48

ORDER

¶49

On a perusal of the case diary, I find something suspicious regarding the statement of the defacto complainant given under Section 161 of Cr.P.C.. In the FI statement, he is definite regarding the involvement of four persons, and he has clearly stated as to who beat him with iron rod. But the further statement is contrary to what was earlier stated. I want to know whether such further statement was really given by the complainant, or whether it was otherwise prepared by the Investigating Officer. The injured will have to be heard. The petitioners will take steps to implead the defacto complainant, whose presence is felt necessary for decision.

¶50

Post next week.

¶51

B.A.No. 3344 of 2016

-6-

P.UBAID

JUDGE

Sivaprasad v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sivaprasad 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

Sandhya Vs State of Kerala

Babu A.L. Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Malik. N.A Vs State of Kerala

Sathya Stephen Vs the State of Kerala

Aneesh Vs State of Kerala

Sivan Vs State of Kerala