Allowed

Arun.K.B v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC9 Aug 2016Bail Appl./3867/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is an order granting anticipatory bail to three accused persons charged with assault causing hurt. The court rejected the need for custodial interrogation as investigation was practically complete and found no solid basis for the charge of attempt to murder.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners released on bail bond with two sureties for ₹40,000 each; ordered to appear weekly and not leave limits or contact witnesses.

Arun.K.B Vs State of Kerala — Anticipatory Bail | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF AUGUST 2016/18TH SRAVANA, 1938

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 3867 of 2016

¶6

CRIME NO. 235/2016 OF SHORNUR POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:

¶8

1. ARUN K.B., AGED 18 YEARS, S/O.GANGADHARAN, MARIYIL HOUSE, KUNATHARA POST, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT

¶9

2. ARJUN V.V., AGED 22 YEARS, S/O.SOMASUNDARAN, VAZHATHODI VALIYAVEETTIL HOUSE, KUNATHARA POST, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶10

3. ARUN K., AGED 23 YEARS, S/O.UNNIKRISHNAN, KARUMATHIL HOUSE, KUNATHARA POST, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.P.JAYARAM

¶12

RESPONDENT(S):

¶13

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

¶14

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.LALIZA T.Y.

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09-08-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

msv/

P.UBAID, J.

~~~~~~~~~~

B.A No.3867 of 2016

¶20

~~~~~~~~~~~

¶21

Dated this the 9^th August, 2016

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

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.235 of 2016 of the Shornur Police Station registered under Sections 341, 323, 324 and 308 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. They are the accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 in the crime. The 3^rd accused was arrested by the Police during investigation. It is submitted that he is now on regular bail.

¶24

The prosecution case is that at about 7.15 p.m on 26.3.2016, the four accused assaulted the de facto complainant Arun, and inflicted injuries on his body with weapons like iron rod, with the knowledge of consequence that the injuries may cause death. On a perusal of the case diary, including the wound certificate I find that the complainant had not sustained any serious injury in the alleged incident. He had only some lacerations and

¶25

¶26

B.A No.3867 of 2016

¶27

abrasions. It is not known how the crime happened to be registered under Section 308 I.P.C. Of course, an instance

¶28

of assault under Section 324 I.P.C is made out by the prosecution records, but the allegation under Section 308 I.P.C does not have any solid basis. It is not known what injury sustained by the complainant would cause death in the ordinary circumstances.

¶29

This application for pre arrest bail is opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor on the ground that interrogation of the petitioners is absolutely necessary as part of investigation, and that if the accused are now released, they will definitely obstruct the proper and effective investigation.

¶30

On a perusal of the case diary, I find that investigation is practically over, and the police has already collected the required materials including the weapon of offence. In such a situation, interrogation of the petitioner in custody is not felt necessary.

¶31

In the result, this petition for pre arrest bail is allowed. The petitioners are ordered to be released on bail

¶32

B.A No.3867 of 2016

¶33

¶34

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.235 of 2016 of the Shornur Police Station. Bail is granted on condition that:

¶35

a) The petitioners shall report before the investigating officer between 10 am. and 11 am on all Mondays for a period of two months.

¶36

b) The petitioners shall not leave the

¶37

limits of the Shornur Police Station for a period of two months.

¶38

c) The petitioners shall not in any manner influence or intimidate the material witnesses, or they shall not have any contact with the material witnesses directly or over telephone or otherwise.

¶39

JUDGE

¶40

¶41

/True copy/ P.S to Judge

¶42

Sd/- P.UBAID

Arun.K.B v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arun.K.B 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

Haneesh Vs State of Kerala

Beaula John Sunder Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Kabeer Vs State of Kerala

Ajmal C.K. Vs State of Kerala

Pappinisseri Job @ Unni Vs State of Kerala

Sanu Navas Vs State of Kerala