Allowed

Sandhyavu Rijesh @ Rijeesh v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC3 Feb 2016Bail Appl./392/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application arising from offences under Sections 451, 323, and 326 IPC read with Section 34, the court considered allegations of assault and counter-case evidence. Finding that custodial interrogation was not essential, the court granted bail subject to conditions.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted to the petitioner subject to appearing before the Investigating Officer and furnishing a bond of Rs. 40,000 with two sureties.

Sandhyavu Rijesh @ Rijeesh 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. 392 of 2016 ()

¶6

-----------------------------CRIME NO. 1399/2015 OF MATTANCHERRY POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DIST.

¶7

APPLICANT/ACCUSED NO.1:

¶8

SANDHYAVU RIJESH @ RIJEESH, AGED 22 YEARS, S/O.LATE JOHNSON, HOUSE NO.12/1136-B, PULIMOOTTIL HOUSE, PANAYAPPILLI CORPORATION COLONY, PANAYAPPILLI KARA, THOPPUMPADY VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.PRASUN.S., SRI.PAUL MATHEW (PERUMPILLIL).

¶10

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT-STATE:

¶11

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031, REPRESENTING THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MATTANCHERY POLICE STATION.

¶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:

rs.

SUNIL THOMAS, J.

=================

B.A.No.392 of 2016

¶18

=================

¶19

Dated this the 3^rd day of February, 2016

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Petitioner is the first accused in Crime No.1399 of 2015 of Mattanchery Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 451, 323 and 326 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶22

The allegation of the prosecution is that on 16.12.2015 at 1.30p.m., petitioner herein and his mother trespassed into the house of the de facto complainant and picked up a quarrel. It is stated that he assaulted the de facto complainant, who sustained fracture of the ulna. She was taken to the hospital and crime was registered. The second accused is stated to have been produced before the magistrate and have granted bail on the same day. Petitioner apprehends arrest.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner opposing the application submitted that the petitioner is involved in few other crimes and 107 Cr.P.C proceedings are initiated against him. It was further contended that the incident had resulted in a fracture to the de facto complainant and that, parties are neighbours.

¶24

B.A.392/16

¶25

¶26

Possibility of repetition of the crime was also highlighted by the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioner relying on AnnexureA1 contended that, in fact, there was a counter case registered as Crime No.1401 of 2015 on the basis of an FIS lodged on 17.12.2015. It is stated that his mother, who is the second accused, had sustained fracture in the incident when she was pushed down by the de facto complainant and her relatives. Annexure-A4 is the discharge reference card which shows that she was discharged on 22.12.2015 and reference of a fracture is available. Having regard to these materials, I feel that essentially the allegation against the petitioner is to be established by the oral evidence and by the attending circumstances. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner in this case does not appear to be essential. Hence, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner subject to the following conditions.

¶28

(i) Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer within ten days from today and shall undergo interrogation. If he is proposed to be arrested, he shall be released on bail on he executing a bond for a sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand only) with two sureties for the like sum each.

¶29

B.A.392/16

¶30

¶31

(ii) He shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Mondays and Fridays between 9 a.m. and 10 a.m. for a period of two months from the date of execution of the bond as above.

¶32

(iii) He shall not get involved in any other identical offence and shall not threaten, coerce or intimidate the de facto complainant or her witnesses.

¶33

The anticipatory bail application is allowed as above.

¶34

Sd/- SUNIL THOMAS Judge

¶35

Sbna/3/2/16

¶36

True Copy

¶37

P A to Judge

Sandhyavu Rijesh @ Rijeesh v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandhyavu Rijesh @ Rijeesh 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

Cases cited

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

Dhanesh Vs State of Kerala

Subin Philip Vs State of Kerala