Dismissed

Sreekumar v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC3 Mar 2016Bail Appl./506/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment dismissed a bail application filed by an accused person charged with offences under the Indian Penal Code for involvement in violent incidents including assaults with stones and weapons. The court refused bail, citing the severity of the allegations, number of injuries sustained by victims, and political motive.

What did the court decide?

Bail application dismissed; petitioners to remain in judicial custody.

Sreekumar 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

THURSDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF MARCH 2016/13TH PHALGUNA, 1937

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 506 of 2016

¶6

CRIME NO. 1883/2015 OF MAVELIKKARA POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/A6:

¶8

SREEKUMAR, S/O.SREEDHARAN PILLAI, KOIPPALLIL HOUSE, EREZHA NORTH, CHETTIKULANGARA PO, MAVELIKKARA.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.BASANT BALAJI

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MAVELIKKARA POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.

¶12

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.SHIBU JOSEPH

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03-03-2016, ALONG WITH BA. 1317/2016, BA. 1319/2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

¶15

SUNIL THOMAS, J.

¶16

B.A.Nos.506, 1317 & 1319 of 2016

¶17

Dated this the 3^rd day of March, 2016

¶18

ORDER

¶19

B.A No.1317/2016 arises from Crime

¶20

No.1882/2015 of Mavelikkara Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 323, 324, 341, 308 read with Section 149 of IPC. The petitioners are accused nos. 1 and 2. B.A.No.1319/2016 and 506/2016 arises from Crime No.1883/2015 of Mavelikkara Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 326, 341 and 308 of IPC read Section 27 of Arms Act, 1959. The petitioners herein in B.A No.1319/2016 are accused nos. 1 and 2 and the petitioners in B.A No.506/2016 is the 6^th accused.

¶21

Through two separate crimes are filed, it appears to be a part of a chain of incidents that happened on 25.11.2015 at 9.30 p.m., and at 11.30 p.m., respectively at two different places. In Crime

¶22

B.A.Nos.506, 1317 & 1319 of 2016 2

¶23

No.1882/2015, the crux of the allegation is that the accused formed into an unlawful assembly, armed with granite stones and attacked the de facto complainant therein and others. The specific allegation is that the accused nos. 5 and 8 have used the granite stones. In Crime No.1833/2015, the allegation is that the accused armed with swords and choppers attacked the de facto complainant and others. In that case, about 6 persons sustained injuries. Political rivalry was stated to be the motive for the above incident.

¶24

It appears that though the allegation against the accused in Crime No.1882/2015 are not very serious, some of them stands arrayed in the subsequent crime in 1883/2015. In Crime No.1883/2015, there is an allegation of use of weapon and the names of accused nos. 1 and 2 are mentioned in the FIS itself. The learned counsel for all the accused contended that the case is cooked up due to political rivalry and they are sought to be falsely implicated. Additionally, the learned counsel for the 6^th accused in Crime No.1883/2015 further contended that

¶25

B.A.Nos.506, 1317 & 1319 of 2016 3

¶26

though his name is referred to in the FIS and specific overtact of each of the accused are referred to in the FIS meticulously by the first informant, no specific use of a weapon is attributed to the 6^th accused.

¶27

However, the learned Public Prosecutor brought to my notice the statement of one Kuttan, who had allegedly sustained injury at the hands of the 6^th accused. According to him, he was inflicted with injury using a sword. Corresponding one injury is seen on the body of Kuttan in the form of a cut injury having a measurement of 5x3 cm. Few other minor injuries were also seen.

¶28

Though six persons sustained injury, they does not appear to be very grievous. However, having regard to the fact that the incident occurred during night, that there was a chain of incidents, that political rivalry is the cause and also the fact that the weapon used have not been recovered and the further fact that six persons sustained injury, without any corresponding injury on the side of the persons who assaulted, I am not inclined to

¶29

B.A.Nos.506, 1317 & 1319 of 2016

¶30

¶31

grant bail to the petitioners.

¶32

The bail application is accordingly dismissed.

¶33

Sd SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE

¶34

¶35

//TRUE COPY//

¶36

P.A. TO JUDGE

Sreekumar v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sreekumar 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vaisakh Vs State of Kerala

Sunil Vs State of Kerala

Mukesh Vs State of Kerala

Devidasan Vs State of Kerala

Thyagarajan Vs State of Kerala

Jayaprakasan G. Vs the State of Kerala