Dismissed

Rahul v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC22 Jun 2016Bail Appl./3612/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court dismissed anticipatory bail pleas filed by six accused persons charged with offences under the IPC for forming an unlawful assembly and attacking a complainant with deadly weapons. The judge denied pre-arrest bail due to the gravity of allegations and injuries but permitted regular bail upon surrender to an Investigating Officer or Magistrate.

What did the court decide?

Dismissance of anticipatory bail prayers; option to surrender for regular bail retained.

Rahul 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 RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JUNE 2016/1ST ASHADHA, 1938

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 3612 of 2016 ()

¶6

------------------------------CRIME NO. 350/2016 OF NEMMARA POLICE STATION , PALAKKAD DISTRICT

¶7

APPLICANT(S)/ACCUSED NOS.2, 4 TO 8:

¶8

1. RAHUL, AGED 20 YEARS, S/O.CHANDRAN, KAIPENCHERRY HOUSE, KAIPENCHERRY, AYALUR P.O., NEMMARA, PALAKKAD.

¶9

2. AKSHAY, AGED 21 YEARS, S/O.SUDEVAN, IDIYAMPOTT HOUSE, KAIPENCHERRY, AYALUR P.O.,

¶10

NEMMARA, PALAKKAD.

¶11

3. VIPIN, AGED 20 YEARS OLD, S/O.VIJAYAN, PARACKAL HOUSE, KAIPENCHERRY, KAIPENCHERRY, AYALUR P.O., NEMMARA, PALAKKAD.

¶12

4. AJEESH,

¶13

AGED 24 YEARS, S/O.NARAYANAN, PARACKAL HOUSE, KAIPENCHERRY, KAIPENCHERRY, AYALUR P.O., NEMMARA, PALAKKAD.

¶14

5. ARUN,

¶15

AGED 20 YEARS, S/O.SWAMINATHAN, IDIYAMPOTTA HOUSE, KAIPENCHERRY, AYALUR P.O., NEMMARA, PALAKKAD.

¶16

6. LUTTAN @ ANOOP, AGED 22 YEARS, S/O.RAMAKRISHNAN, KOILICKAL HOUSE, VADAKKEKAD, CHATHAMANGALAM P.O., NEMMARA, PALAKKAD.

¶17

BY ADV. SRI.V.A.JOHNSON (VARIKKAPPALLIL)

2/-

-2-

BA.NO.3612/2016

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶22

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

¶23

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. SAREENA GEORGE

¶24

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22-06-2016, ALONG WITH BA.NO. 3953 OF 2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

sts

¶26

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V, J

¶27

-----------------------------------------------

¶28

B.A. Nos. 3612 & 3953 of 2016

¶29

----------------------------------------------

¶30

Dated this the 22^nd day of June, 2016

¶31

O R D E R

¶32

These petitions are filed under section 438 of the

¶33

Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶34

The petitioner in B.A.No.3953 of 2016 is the 4^th accused and the petitioners 1, 2, 3 and 4 are accused Nos.2, 3, 5 and 6 in crime No.350 of 2016 of Nemmara Police Station, Palakkad. The aforesaid crime has been registered alleging offence punishable under sections 143, 147, 148, 294(b), 506 (ii), 324 and 308 read with 149 of the IPC.

¶35

The prosecution allegation is that on 2.4.2016 at 2.45 PM, the petitioners along with other accused formed themselves into an unlawfully assembly and

¶36

BA 3612 & 3953/16

¶37

¶38

attacked the de facto complainant with deadly weapons.

¶39

It is submitted by the learned counsel that allegations against them are absolutely false and they have no role to play in the incident. It is also submitted that a crime has been registered at the instance Rajesh as crime No.420/2016 of Nemmara Police Station against the de facto complainant inter alia for offence punishable under section 308 of the IPC.

¶40

Learned Public Prosecutor would oppose the contentions and submit that serious injuries were inflicted on the defacto complainant and his friends by the petitioners. It is also submitted that the petitioners had wielded deadly weapons such as swords for the commission of the offence.

¶41

Having regard to the nature of allegations, the gravity of injury sustained and the other facts and circumstances, I am of the view that this court will not

¶42

BA 3612 & 3953/16

¶43

¶44

be justified in granting relief of pre-arrest bail to the petitioners. The petition is therefore dismissed.

¶45

However, the option of the petitioner to surrender before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate and seek regular bail shall remain unfettered. If the petitioner so appears and applies for bail, needless to say, the learned Magistrate must proceed to pass orders on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously.

¶46

sd/- RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V. JUDGE

¶47

vps/22.6.2016

Rahul v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul 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

Biju Vs State of Kerala

Vishnu Vs State of Kerala

Mahmood Vs State of Kerala

P.U Jose Vs Sub Inspector of Police

Kiran Christepher Vs State of Kerala

Sureshkumar @ Surendran Vs State of Kerala