Allowed

S.J.Satheesh v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC25 Jul 2016Bail Appl./3873/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court granted pre-arrest bail to the second accused in a 308/324 IPC assault case after finding investigation practically over. The court held custodial interrogation unnecessary and imposed reporting and non-interference conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail with two sureties for Rs.30,000 each, subject to reporting on Saturdays, remaining within local limits, and not contacting witnesses.

S.J.Satheesh 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 P.UBAID

¶4

MONDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF JULY 2016/3RD SRAVANA, 1938

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 3873 of 2016

¶6

CRIME NO. 509/2016 OF BALARAMAPURAM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/2ND ACCUSED:

¶8

S.J.SATHEESH, S/O.SADASIVAN, AGED 28 YEARS, CHARUVLA PUTHENVEEDU, THETTIVILA, KALLIYOOR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.M.RAMASWAMY PILLAI SRI.P.C.VIJAYAKUMAR

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/STATE & COMPLAINANT:

¶11

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

¶12

2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, BALARAMAPURAM POLICE STATION, TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT - 695 001.

¶13

3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, BALARAMAPURAM POLICE STATION, TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT - 695 001.

¶14

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.LALIZA T.Y.

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25-07-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

msv/

P. UBAID, J.

B.A.No.3873 of 2016

Dated this the 25^th day of July, 2016

¶20

The petitioner herein seeks pre-arrest bail under

¶21

Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the apprehension of arrest and custodial harassment in connection with Crime No.509/2016 of the Balaramapuram Police Station, registered under Sections 341, 323, 324, 308 and 34 IPC. He is the second accused in the crime.

¶22

The prosecution case is that at about 9.30 pm on 26.04.2016, this petitioner and the co-accused assaulted the defacto complainant and his friend, and inflicted injuries on their body with weapons, with the knowledge of consequence that such injuries may cause death. It is submitted that the first accused was arrested by the police, and he was later released on bail. The 3^rd accused is yet to be identified and arrested. On a perusal of the materials including the wound certificate, I find that the complainant or his friend had not sustained any serious injury in the alleged incident. It is not known how the very simple injuries

¶23

¶24

B.A.No.3873 of 2016

¶25

sustained by them will cause death. There is reason to believe that Section 308 IPC was incorporated in the FIR by the police on the basis of some hypothetical statement. What is at the most revealed by the prosecution records is an instance of assault that may attract Section 324 IPC.

¶26

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 proper and effective investigation.

¶27

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 investigation in the crime is practically over, and that the petitioner can be granted pre-arrest bail. I find that the investigating officer has already questioned the material witnesses. In the nature of the allegations, and also the nature of the materials required for prosecution, I find that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary in this case. The police has gone a long way with investigation, and

¶28

¶29

B.A.No.3873 of 2016

¶30

has already collected necessary materials. I do not find the necessity of detention of the petitioner in custody for the purpose of investigation in the above circumstances. It will suffice that the petitioner is directed to report before the investigating officer periodically. However, some other conditions are also felt necessary for bail.

¶31

In the result, this petition for pre-arrest bail is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his executing a bond with two solvent sureties for Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only) each to the satisfaction of the arresting officer or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction, in case of his arrest in connection with Crime No.509/2016 of the Balaramapuram Police Station. Bail is granted on condition that

¶32

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

¶33

b) The petitioner shall not leave the limits

¶34

of Balaramapuram Police Station for a period of two months.

¶35

c) The petitioner shall not in any manner

¶36

¶37

B.A.No.3873 of 2016

¶38

influence or intimidate the material witnesses, or he

¶39

shall not have any contact with the material witnesses

¶40

directly or over telephone or otherwise.

Sd/-

P. UBAID, JUDGE

// True Copy //

P.A. to Judge

S.J.Satheesh v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.J.Satheesh 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

Thressiamma Vs State of Kerala

E K Rajan Vs State of Kerala

Babu Vs State of Kerala

Bijimon @ Shijin Vs State of Kerala

Zakeer Hussain Vs State of Kerala

Safeer Vs State of Kerala