Allowed

Chandran Nair @ Chandu v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC3 Aug 2016Bail Appl./5162/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed regular bail for four petitioners involved in election-related assault and attempt to murder cases. The court granted bail on strict conditions including weekly reporting, non-interaction with witnesses, and district residency, noting that investigation had progressed sufficiently to avoid indefinite custody.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted on execution of separate bonds with two solvent sureties for 1 Lakh each, subject to strict conditions of reporting and district confinement.

Chandran Nair @ Chandu 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

WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF AUGUST 2016/12TH SRAVANA, 1938

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 5162 of 2016 ()

¶6

------------------------------CRIME NO. 347/2016 OF KASARAGOD POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.3 TO 6:

¶8

1. CHANDAN NAIK @ CHANDU,

¶9

AGED 25 YEARS, S/O MANOHARAN NAIK,

¶10

MANDHIR, RD NAGAR, KUDLU VILLAGE.

¶11

2. HAREESH. P. @ DHOOMA HAREESH,

¶12

S/O. PRABHAKARAN, AGED 26 YEARS,

¶13

SHIVAKRISHNA NILAYAM, NM COMPOUND,

¶14

PACHAKKAD, KUDLU VILLAGE.

¶15

3. SHARATH CHANDRAN @ SHARATH, S/O. CHANDRAN, AGED 23 YEARS,

¶16

NM COMPOUND, KUDLU VILLAGE, PACHAKKAD.

¶17

4. SAJITH S.P. @ SHYJU,

¶18

S/O. SHANKARAN @ SHANKARAN, AGED 22 YEARS,

¶19

VENCHAPPADU, JANAKI NILAYAM,

¶20

SHIVAKRISHNA ROAD, KUDLU VILLAGE.

¶21

BY ADVS.SRI.I.V.PRAMOD

¶22

SRI.K.V.SASIDHARAN

¶23

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT/STATE:

¶24

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

¶25

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.REMA. R.

¶26

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03-08-2016, ALONG WITH BA NO.5163/2016 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶27

rs.

¶28

P.UBAID, J.

¶29

- - - - B.A.Nos. 5162, 5163, 5164 & 5165 of 2016

¶30

- - - - Dated this the 03^rd day of August, 2016

¶31

ORDER

¶32

The petitioners in these four applications are

¶33

involved as accused in two crimes registered at the Kasaragod Police Station. One is Crime No. 344 of 2016 registered under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 326 and 308 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, and the other is Crime No.347 of 2016 registered under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 326, 427 and 307 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioners in B.A.Nos. 5165 of 2016 and 5163 of 2016 are the accused Nos. 1 and 2 in the two crimes, the petitioners in B.A.No. 5164 of 2016 are the accused Nos. 3 to 5 in Crime No. 344 of 2016, and the petitioners in 5162 of 2016 are the accused Nos. 3 to 6 in Crime No. 347 of 2016. When the accused

¶34

Nos. 1 and 2 in the two crimes seek regular bail for the second time, the other accused seek regular bail for the first

¶35

B.A.Nos. 5162, 5163, 5164 & 5164 of 2016 -2-

¶36

time. The first application made by the the accused Nos. 1 and 2 in the two crimes was dismissed by this Court on 28.6.2016. They have been in custody since 3.6.2016, but the others have been in custody since 14.6.2016.

¶37

The prosecution case is that in an open fight between two political groups in connection with the declaration of the results of the election to the Kerala Legislative Assembly on 19.5.2016, a gang of identified persons including the petitioners herein inflicted injuries on the body of two persons belonging to the other political faction. The victim in Crime No. 347 of 2016 was very seriously injured. He was initially brought at the local hospital from where he was referred to the Medical College Hospital for expert management. I do not think that the allegation therein under Section 307 of IPC is baseless. There is reason to believe that such serious injuries on the body of the victim therein were inflicted by the petitioners and others in an attempt on his life. The victim of offence in

¶38

B.A.Nos. 5162, 5163, 5164 & 5164 of 2016 -3-

¶39

Crime No. 344 of 2016 had sustained some grievous injuries like fracture of the right ulna, and fracture of the medial cuneiform at the right side. He had also laceration over the left side of forehead, measuring about 3 x 2 cms in size, and another laceration over the parrital region of scalp 2 x 1 cms in size. Thus, Crime No. 347 of 2016 is a clear case of Section 326 of IPC, besides other offences, and Crime No. 344 of 2016 is a case of attempt on life under Section 307 of IPC.

¶40

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 are now released, they will definitely obstruct the investigation.

¶41

On a perusal of the materials in the two crimes, I find that investigation in two crimes has progressed much. True it is that, serious injuries were inflicted on the body of the victims by the petitioners and others in the alleged incident. It is now submitted that the victim of

¶42

B.A.Nos. 5162, 5163, 5164 & 5164 of 2016 -4-

¶43

offence in Crime No. 347 of 2016 has been discharged from the hospital. The accused Nos. 1 and 2 have been in custody for the last two months, and the others have been in custody for 1½ months. When investigation has progressed much, or when it is practically over, it would be inappropriate to detain the petitioners anymore in custody. I feel that they can be granted bail on very strict conditions. The Investigating Officer has questioned all the material witnesses, and has recovered the weapons of offence. Now there is no question of investigation being obstructed by the petitioners. However, any possibility of the victims being influenced or won over during investigation or during trial, will have to be averted by imposing strict conditions.

¶44

In the result, these applications for bail are allowed. The petitioners will be released on bail in both the crimes i.e. Crime Nos. 344 of 2016 and 347 of 2016 on their executing separate bonds in the two crimes with two solvent sureties for 1 lakh (Rupees One Lakh only) each to the₹

¶45

B.A.Nos. 5162, 5163, 5164 & 5164 of 2016 -5-

¶46

satisfaction of the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction. Bail is granted on condition that;

¶47

a. The petitioners shall report before

¶48

the Circle Inspector of Police, Hosdurg between 10.00 a.m. and 11 a.m. on all Saturdays for a period of three months, or till the investigation process is over.

¶49

b. The petitioners shall not enter the jurisdictional limits of Kasaragod Police Station for three months from this date, or till the investigation process is over.

¶50

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.

¶51

d. The petitioner shall not leave the

¶52

Kasaragod Revenue District till trial of the

¶53

B.A.Nos. 5162, 5163, 5164 & 5164 of 2016

¶54

-6-

¶55

two cases is over, unless otherwise permitted

¶56

by the trial court in due course of trial for

¶57

sufficient reasons.

¶58

Forward a copy of this order to the Circle Inspector

¶59

of Police, Hosdurg, who will report compliance of the conditions to the learned Magistrate.

Sd/- P.UBAID

JUDGE

//True copy//

P.A. to Judge

Chandran Nair @ Chandu v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandran Nair @ Chandu 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

Mahesh Vs State of Kerala

M.C. Aboobaker Vs State of Kerala

C R Venugopalan Vs State of Kerala

Nafeel Vs the State of Kerala

Biju N.G Vs State of Kerala

Asfana T.A. Vs Sub Inspector of Police