Allowed

Santhosh v. the Sub Inspector of Police

Kerala HC13 Jan 2016Bail Appl./49/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Ernakulam granted bail to the petitioner accused in a case involving offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 324, 308, and 427 of the IPC. The court found the motive for causing injury to be flimsy and held that custodial interrogation was not essential, imposing standard reasonable conditions, including appearance before the investigation officer and appearance before the court.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted to the petitioner subject to conditions of appearing before the investigation officer within 10 days for interrogation and subsequent appearance in court, depositing a bond of Rs. 40,000

Santhosh Vs the Sub Inspector of Police — Cheating and Forgery | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016/23RD POUSHA, 1937

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 49 of 2016

¶6

CRIME NO. 2045/2015 OF MAVELIKKARA POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA.

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

SANTHOSH, S/O. SUSHEELAN, SREELAKSHMI BHAVAN, AGED 48 YEARS, KARUVATTUMKUZHI, KEERIKKADU VILLAGE.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.K.R.SUNIL

¶10

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶11

THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MAVELIKKARA POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA.

¶12

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.T.Y.LALIZA

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13-01-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

mbr/

¶15

SUNIL THOMAS, J.

¶16

B. A. No. 49 of 2016

¶17

Dated this the 13^th day of January, 2016

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

The petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.2045/2015 of Mavelikara Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 341, 294(b), 324, 308 and 427 of IPC.

¶20

The allegation of the prosecution is that, due to previous enmity, the petitioner herein caused bodily injuries on the defacto complainant on 18.12.2015 at about 2.30 p.m. The petitioner apprehending arrest in the above case, seeks bail.

¶21

The FIR in the present case indicates that the motive for causing bodily injuries is that, the mother of the defacto complainant had booked the vehicle of the petitioner herein for a trip, which was later cancelled and due to that, he intercepted the defacto complainant while he was travelling along with his mother. It is alleged that using an iron pipe he hit on the head of the defacto complainant. The motive alleged to be very flimsy. The exact incident is sought to be established through the oral testimony of eye witnesses. The wound certificate indicates that the defacto complainant had sustained a lacerated wound on the scalp. There were abrasions and wounds also. However, this

¶22

¶23

B. A. No. 49 of 2016

¶24

specific allegation has to be appreciated against Annexure 1 complaint in which the petitioner herein had raised serious allegations against the accused therein by name Gopan. It is alleged that, on 06.12.2015 at 11.00 am, the accused therein trespassed into the house and caught hold of the daughter of the defacto complainant and tried to molest her. The complaint was laid on 21.12.2015. The complaint in the present case is subsequent to that. It is submitted that the defacto complainant in the present case is the accused therein though the name differs. Both appears to be the son of Soman Pilla. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner herein, the present case was set up as a retaliation for the crime in the other case under Section 354.

¶25

Having regard to these facts, I feel that a custodial interrogation may not be essential and bail can be granted to the petitioner subject to the following conditions:

¶26

(i) The petitioner shall appear before the

¶27

Investigation Officer within 10 days from

¶28

today and shall undergo interrogation. Thereafter if he is proposed to be arrested,

¶29

B. A. No. 49 of 2016

¶30

¶31

he shall be released on bail, on he executing a bond for a sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupee forty thousand only) with two sureties each for the like sum.

¶32

(ii) He shall appear before the Investigation Officer an all Fridays between 10.00 a.m. and 11.00 a.m. for a period of two months from the date of execution of the bond.

¶33

(iii) He shall not threaten the defacto complainant, coerce or intimidate the witnesses and shall not in any manner interfere with the investigation.

¶34

Sd/SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE.

¶35

/true copy/

¶36

P. A. to Judge

¶37

Santhosh v. the Sub Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santhosh v. the Sub Inspector of Police

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

Shaji Vs State of Kerala

Badusha Vs State of Kerala

Rameshan K. Vs State of Kerala

Dijeeh P.D @ Kannan Vs State of Kerala

Sabu Vs State of Kerala

K.M. Kunjumon Vs State of Kerala