Allowed

Sreelal @ Lal v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC12 Feb 2016Bail Appl./436/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed anticipatory bail petition for two accused alleging vague roles in a case involving unnatural death. Bail granted subject to interrogation, surrender, passport submission, and strict conduct conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail allowed subject to conditions including surrender within one week, execution of bond with sureties, and prohibition from leaving Kerala.

Sreelal @ Lal 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

FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/23RD MAGHA, 1937

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 436 of 2016 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 1634/2015 OF KAREELAKULANGARA POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED :

¶8

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

¶9

SREELAL @ LAL, AGED 26 YEARS, S/O.VASAPPAN, KULATHINTE VADAKKATHIL, MUTTOM KIZHAKKUM MURI, CHEPPAD VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.K.SHAJ SRI.SAJJU.S SRI.RENJIT GEORGE

¶11

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT :

¶12

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

¶13

1. STATE OF KERALA REP BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 682031

¶14

2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE KAREELAKULANGARA POLICE STATION, KAREELAKULANGARA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT 690501

¶15

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. JASMINE V.H.

¶16

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12-02-2016, ALONG WITH BA. 828/2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

¶18

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, J.

¶19

B.A.Nos.436 & 828 of 2016

¶20

Dated this the 12^th day of February, 2016

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

These are applications filed under S.438 of the Code of

¶23

Criminal Procedure seeking pre-arrest bail.

¶24

The petitioner in B.A.No.828/2016 is the 6^th

¶25

accused and the petitioner in B.A.No.436/2016 is the 5^th accused in Crime No.1634/2016 of Kareelakulangara police station. The said crime has been registered alleging offence punishable under S. 143, 147, 148, 447, 341, 323, 324, 115, 307 r/w S.149 of the IPC.

¶26

The gist of the prosecution allegation is that on 27.11.2015 at 9.00 p.m., the accused Nos.1 to 4 along with

¶27

two other persons who could be identified by sight trespassed into the house of the de facto complainant and

¶28

B.A.Nos.436 & 828 of 2016 : 2 :

¶29

inflicted injuries using a knife as well as a rafter.

¶30

I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the

¶31

petitioners as well as the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶32

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that this Court as per order dated 14.01.2016 in B.A.No.8294/2015 had granted anticipatory bail to the 2^nd accused. As per common order dated 04.01.2016 in B.A.No.8295/2015 and B.A. No . 8293/2015 regular bail was granted to accused Nos.1 and 4. Relying on Annexure A copy of the FIR in the instant crime, it was argued that specific allegations are alleged only against the accused No 1 to 4, who are all members of the same family and accused Nos.5 and 6, who are the petitioners herein, have neither been identified nor their name stated as per the earliest records. According to the learned counsel, it is the 1^st accused who had inflicted the stab injury and it was the 2^nd

¶33

B.A.Nos.436 & 828 of 2016 : 3 :

¶34

accused who had handed over the knife to the first accused The accused No 3 and 4 are alleged to have dealt with blows on the informants husband with wooden sticks . According to the learned counsel, the petitioners are innocent and being neighbors and persons known to the defacto complainant, the failure to mention their name in the earliest statement, speaks volumes of their innocence.

¶35

The learned Public Prosecutor would submit that anticipatory bail was granted only to the 2^nd accused who is the wife of the first accused. As against the accused Nos.1 & 4, regular bail was granted. Third accused has not been arrested till date. No previous incidents in respect of the petitioners herein are reported. It is also admitted that the names of the petitioners were not stated when the earliest statements were furnished and it is also submitted that the weapon used by the 1^st accused to inflict the stab injury was recovered at his instance.

¶36

B.A.Nos.436 & 828 of 2016 : 4 :

¶37

I have perused the records and it appears that in

¶38

so far as the unnamed accused No 5 and 6 are concerned , only vague allegations are levelled. The recovery of the weapon allegedly used by the 1^st accused has already been effected. There is also considerable merit in the submission of the learned counsel that absence of mention of the names of the petitioners in the FI statement has some significance . In the result, this application is allowed, but subject to the following conditions:

¶39

i. Petitioners shall, within a period of one week, surrender before the investigating officer and submit themselves for interrogation. Thereafter, in the event of their arrest ,they shall be released on bail on the petitioners executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- each (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction

¶40

B.A.Nos.436 & 828 of 2016 : 5 :

¶41

of the investigating officer.

¶42

ii. Petitioners shall appear before the investigating officer at 10.00 a.m. on the next two consecutive days and submit themselves for interrogation.

¶43

iii. If the investigating officer requires the attendance of the petitioners on any further occasion than the days mentioned above, he can direct the accused in writing to appear and co-operate with the investigation.

¶44

iv. The petitioners shall surrender their passports before the Magistrate concerned in one week from the date of appearance before the investigating officer. If any of the petitioners does not have a passport, they shall swear to an affidavit showing that fact and submit it before the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction.

¶45

v. The petitioners shall not influence or intimidate the witnesses. They shall not meddle in any manner with the investigation.

¶46

B.A.Nos.436 & 828 of 2016 : 6 :

¶47

vi. The petitioners shall not leave the limits of State of Kerala without the permission of the Magistrate concerned. vii. If any of the conditions above is violated, the Magistrate having jurisdiction is empowered to cancel the bail in accordance with law without referring the matter to this Court. The application is allowed as above

¶48

Sd/-

¶49

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, JUDGE.

¶50

¶51

[True copy]

¶52

P.A to Judge

Sreelal @ Lal v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sreelal @ Lal 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

Arunkumar Vs State of Kerala

Ajay Mohandas Vs the State of Kerala

Ajeesh Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Muhammed Riyas Vs the State of Kerala

Srejith Vs State of Kerala

Shajith Vs State of Kerala