Allowed

Sasidharan v. Station House Officer

Kerala HC15 Jun 2016Bail Appl./4318/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment grants regular bail to two petitioners accused of assaulting a person with weapons while transporting cattle. The court ordered release upon compliance with specific reporting non-moving leave-contact restrictions and jurisdiction limits.

What did the court decide?

Regular bail granted on bond with two sureties of Rupees 4,000/- each subject to conditions including reporting non-leaving jurisdiction and no contact with witnesses.

Sasidharan Vs Station House Officer — 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

WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/25TH JYAISHTA, 1938

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 4318 of 2016

¶6

CRIME NO. 263/2016 OF MANJESWAR POLICE STATION, KASARGOD

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NO 1 & 2:

¶8

1. SASIDHARAN, S/O SUBBANNA, AGED 32 YEARS, NEAR CHOWKAR MANTHRAVATHI GULIKU TEMPLE, KADAMBAR, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

¶9

2. ROHITH, S/O NARAYANAN, AGED 19 YEARS, NEAR CHOWKAR MANTHRAVATHI GULIKU TEMPLE, KADAMBAR, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT AND STATE:

¶12

1. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, MANJESHWAR POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD DISTRICT - 671 323.

¶13

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

¶14

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.REMA R.

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

msv/

P.UBAID, J.

~~~~~~~~~~

B.A No.4318 of 2016

¶20

~~~~~~~~~~~

¶21

Dated this the 15^th June, 2016

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

The petitioners herein are the accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.263 of 2016 of the Manjeshwar Police Station registered under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324 and 308 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code. They seek regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The application filed by them for regular bail was dismissed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kasaragod. The petitioner has been in judicial custody since 27.5.2016.

¶24

The prosecution case is that at about 3.00 pm on 22.5.2016, these petitioners and the 3^rd accused assaulted the de facto complainant and inflicted injuries on his body with weapons while they were transporting some cattles in a lorry. It is not known what the motive for the incident is. Anyway, a perusal of the wound certificate shows that the the de facto complainant had sustained lacerated wound 4cm x1 cm skull deep over the left

¶25

B.A No.4318 of 2016

¶26

¶27

temporal region of the head, and contusion 6x4cm on the back of the left hand. By nature, none of the injuries is serious.

¶28

This application for regular bail is opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor on the ground that investigation is still in progress, and that if the accused is now released, they will definitely obstruct the investigation.

¶29

On hearing both sides, and on a perusal of the materials including the case diary, I find that the Investigating Officer has already questioned the material witnesses, and has collected the necessary materials for a prosecution. I do not find the necessity of continued detention of the petitioners in custody. However, some reasonable conditions for bail are felt necessary in the particular facts and circumstances.

¶30

In the result, this application for bail is allowed. The petitioners will be released on bail on their executing bond with two solvent sureties for 4,000/- (Rupees Fourty₹ thousand only) each to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate having jurisdiction. Bail is

¶31

B.A No.4318 of 2016

¶32

¶33

granted on condition that;

¶34

a. The petitioners shall report before the

¶35

Investigating Officer between 10.00 am to 11 a.m on all Saturdays for a period of two months.

¶36

b. The petitioners shall not leave the jurisdictional limits of the Manjeshwar Police Station for two months.

¶37

c. The petitioners shall not have any contact with the material witnesses directly or over telephone or otherwise.

¶38

c. The petitioners shall not enter the revenue village

¶39

where the house of the victim of offence is situated till trial of the case is over.

¶40

Sd/P.UBAID JUDGE

¶41

Sasidharan v. Station House Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sasidharan v. Station House Officer

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 S/O.Nanappan Vs State of Kerala

V.S.Chandran Vs State of Kerala

Vijesh M.P Vs Sub Inspector of Police

Basheer Vs the State of Kerala

Eldhose K.G Vs State of Kerala

Udyan T.N Vs State of Kerala