Allowed

Prabhu Krishnan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC28 Jun 2016Bail Appl./4687/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a bail application where the court allowed relief to the petitioners who were accused of offence punishable under Section 307 IPC. The court found that the investigation is practically over and directed the release of the petitioners on regular bail with two solvent sureties and specific conditions including reporting and no entry into the jurisdictional limits of the police station. The g

What did the court decide?

Release of petitioners on bail on executing bond with two solvent sureties of Rs 50,000 each on conditions of reporting to police and not entering jurisdictional limits.

Prabhu Krishnan 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

TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/7TH ASHADHA, 1938

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 4687 of 2016 () -----------------------------AGAINST THE ORDER IN Bail Appl. 3667/2016 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 23-05-2016 AGAINST THE ORDER IN CRMP 1502/2016 of D.C. & SESSIONS COURT,KOLLAM DATED 03-06-2016 CRIME NO. 737/2016 OF SASTHAMCOTTA POLICE STATION , KOLLAM

¶6

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NOS 1 TO 4:

¶7

1. PRABHU KRISHNAN, AGED 22 YEARS, S/O. ASHOK KUMAR, PUTHENVILAYIL VEEDU, EAST OF CHAITHANYA JUNCTION, AAYIKUNNAM, SOORANADU SOUTH, SASTHAMKOTTA, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶8

2. MANEESH, AGED 21 YEARS, S/O. THULASEEDHARAN PILLAI, MANGALATHU VEEDU, WEST OF CHAITHANYA JUNCTION, AAYIKUNNAM MURI, SOORANADU SOUTH VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶9

3. SREENATH @ SANTHOOR AGED 22 YEARS, S/O. SOMAN, KUTTIYUDA THEKKATHIL VEEDU, EAST OF THETTIKUZHI SCHOOL, PANAPETTI MURI, SASTHAMKOTTA VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶10

4. SREEJITH AGED 19 YEARS, S/O. SREEDHARAN, SREEVILASOM, EAST OF CHAKKALA JUNCTION, PANAMPATTIURI, SASTHAMKOTTA VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶11

BY ADVS.SRI.B.RAMAN PILLAI (SR.) SRI.R.ANIL SRI.M.SUNILKUMAR SRI.SUJESH MENON V.B. SRI.T.ANIL KUMAR SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM (NILACKAPPILLIL) SRI.M.VIVEK SRI.A.RAJESH SRI.B.KRISHNA KUMAR

¶12

RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT:

¶13

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

¶14

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. LALIZA T.Y.

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

¶17

P.UBAID, J.

¶18

- - - - B.A.No. 4687 of 2016

¶19

- - - - Dated this the 28^th day of June, 2016

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The petitioners herein are the accused in Crime No.737 of 2016 of the Sasthamcottah Police Station, registered under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 324, 326 and 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and under Section 27 of the Arms Act. They seek regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners have been in judicial custody since 26.4.2016. This is the petitioners' second application for regular bail. Their first application was dismissed on 23.5.2016.

¶22

The prosecution case is that at about 8 p.m. on 20.4.2016, these petitioners and the other co-accused, as part of a criminal design hatched by them, inflicted simple and serious injuries on the body of the defacto complainant with weapons like sword, iron rod etc, in an attempt on his life. It is alleged that the defacto complainant ran off and

¶23

B.A.No. 4687 of 2016

¶24

-2-

¶25

escaped, and took refuge in a nearby house, but the accused came there also and assaulted the defacto complainant. These petitioners surrendered before the Police on 26.4.2016. It is submitted that the accused Nos. 5 and 6 are yet to be arrested as part of investigation.

¶26

This application for regular bail is opposed by

¶27

the learned Public Prosecutor on the ground that investigation is still in progress, and that if the accused are now released, they will definitely obstruct the investigation.

¶28

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 this case is practically over, and that the petitioners can be now released on appropriate conditions. It is made clear that bail granted to the petitioners as per this order will not in any manner go to the benefit of the other accused, who are yet to be arrested as part of investigation.

¶29

B.A.No. 4687 of 2016

¶30

-3-

¶31

In the result, this application for bail is allowed. The petitioners will be released on bail on their executing a bond with two solvent sureties for 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty₹ Thousand only) each to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction. Bail is granted on condition that;

¶32

a. The petitioners shall report before the Circle Inspector of Police, Karunagappally between 10.00 a.m. and 11 a.m on all Saturdays for a period of two months.

¶33

b. The petitioners shall not enter the jurisdictional limits of Sasthamcottah Police Station for two months.

¶34

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

¶35

B.A.No. 4687 of 2016

¶36

-4-

¶37

Forward a copy of this order to the Circle Inspector of Police, Karunagappally, who will report compliance of the

¶38

conditions to the learned Magistrate.

Sd/- P.UBAID

JUDGE

//True copy//

P.A. to Judge

Prabhu Krishnan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prabhu Krishnan 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

Abdul Gafoor Vs State of Kerala

Alex Varghese Vs State of Kerala

Sreejith Vs State of Kerala

Fazalu Rahman K.K Vs the State of Kerala

Deepak Vs State of Kerala

Nijil Babu Vs State of Kerala