Allowed

Kuttappan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC28 Sept 2016Bail Appl./5337/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court Kerala granted regular bail to accused No.2 and pre-arrest bail to accused Nos.3 and 4. Bail for accused No.1, the primary assailant, was denied as his custodial interrogation is essential to complete the investigation.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted to Petitioners 2, 3, and 4 on bond with sureties and conditions. Bail denied to Petitioner 1 pending investigation and interrogation by IO.

Kuttappan 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 28TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016/6TH ASWINA, 1938

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 5337 of 2016 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 596/2016 OF KEEZHVAIPUR POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTITTA DISTRICT

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NO.1- 4:

¶8

1. KUTTAPPAN,AGED 26 YEARS, S/O.SASI, RESIDING AT KANJIRAMKALAYIL HOUSE, PAMALA, KUNNAMTHANAM, KEEZHVAIPUR, PATHANAMTHITTA - 689 587.

¶9

2. NIBU,AGED 24 YEARS, S/O.THAMPI, RESIDING AT KANJIRAMKALAYIL HOUSE, PAMALA, KUNNAMTHANAM, KEEZHVAIPUR, PATHANAMTHITTA - 689 587.

¶10

3. SASI,AGED 52 YEARS, S/O.CHACKO, RESIDING AT KANJIRAMKALAYIL HOUSE, PAMALA, KUNNAMTHANAM, KEEZHVAIPUR, PATHANAMTHITTA - 689 587.

¶11

4. RAJU,AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.CHACKO, RESIDING AT KANJIRAMKALAYIL HOUSE, PAMALA, KUNNAMTHANAM, KEEZHVAIPUR, PATHANAMTHITTA - 689 587.

¶12

BY ADVS.SRI.C.V.MANUVILSAN SRI.P.C.ANIL KUMAR SMT.K.VIDYA SRI.M.V.VIPINDAS

¶13

RESPONDENT(S)/STATE:

¶14

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KEEZHVAIPUR POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA -682 031.

¶15

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AJITH MURALI

¶16

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28-09-2016, ALONG WITH BA. 6789/2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

¶18

P.UBAID, J.

¶19

============================ B.A.Nos.5337 & 6789 of 2016

¶20

============================ Dated this the 28^th day of September, 2016

¶21

The petitioners in B.A.No.5337 of 2016 are the four accused in Crime No.596 of 2016 of the Keezhvaipur Police Station involving the offences under Sections 294(b), 341 and 308 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. They brought this application for pre-arrest bail on the apprehension of arrest by the police. Pending the application the police arrested the second petitioner, who is the second accused. When produced in court, he was remanded to judicial custody, and his application for bail was disallowed by the learned Magistrate on 06.08.2016. He now seeks regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The second accused has been in custody since 05.09.2016.

¶22

The prosecution case is that at about 7.30 p.m. on 17.04.2016 the petitioners restrained the defacto complainant on his way, assaulted him and inflicted injuries on his body, and when his brother-in-law intervened to save him, he was also assaulted by the petitioners.

¶23

B.A.Nos.5337 & 6789 of 2016 2

¶24

On a perusal of the entire materials, I find that the main allegations of the complainant in his complaint are against the first accused, who seeks pre arrest bail. Ofcourse, as against the others also, there are some allegations, but a perusal of the materials shows that the serious injuries on the body of the victim were inflicted by the first accused with weapon. He does not deserve pre arrest bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The discharge card in the name of the complainant shows that he had sustained a lenier undisplaced fracture of frontal bone in the alleged incident. If so, Section 326 IPC will have to be incorporated. The defence taken by the accused is that the petitioners had also sustained injury in the alleged incident. There is nothing to show that the first accused had sustained any injury in the alleged incident. In the absence of definite materials showing the full complicity of the accused Nos.2 to 4, I feel it appropriate to grant bail to the accused Nos.2 to 4. The accused No.2 can be granted regular bail, and the others can be granted pre arrest bail. But interrogation of the first accused in custody is felt absolutely necessary in the present circumstances. I find on a perusal of the materials that all the injuries were in fact inflicted by him on the body of the complainant and his brother-in-law.

¶25

B.A.Nos.5337 & 6789 of 2016 3

¶26

Though there are allegations against the others also the main allegations are seen made against the first accused in the complaint. His interrogation is felt necessary for the collection of some materials concerning the actual motive for the alleged incident, the number and the nature of the weapons used, the complicity of the other accused, etc. Without interrogation of the first accused in custody, investigation as against him cannot be completed. So, I am not inclined to grant him bail in the above factual situation. If he so opts, he can surrender before the Investigating Officer for necessary interrogation. After such interrogation, the request for bail can be considered by the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction.

¶27

In the result, B.A.No.6789 of 2016 is allowed. The petitioner therein who is the second accused will be released on bail on his executing a bond with two solvent sureties for ₹40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand only) each to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction. Bail is granted on condition that;

¶28

a. The petitioner shall report before the

¶29

Investigating Officer between 10.00 a.m. and 11 a.m. on all Tuesdays for a period of two months.

¶30

B.A.Nos.5337 & 6789 of 2016 4

¶31

b. The petitioner shall not leave the

¶32

jurisdictional limits of the Keezhvaipur Police Station for two months.

¶33

c. The petitioner shall not in any manner

¶34

influence or intimidate the witnesses and he shall not have any contact with the material witnesses directly or over telephone or otherwise.

¶35

B.A.No.5337 of 2016 is allowed in part. The

¶36

request for bail made by the first petitioner (first accused) is disallowed, on the finding that his interrogation in custody is absolutely necessary as part of investigation. The petitioners 3 and 4 (accused Nos.3 and 4) are ordered to be released on bail on their executing a bond with two solvent sureties for 40,000/-₹ (Rupees Forty Thousand only)each to the satisfaction of the arresting officer or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction, in case of their arrest in connection with Crime No.596 of 2016 of the Keezhvaipur Police Station. Bail is granted on condition that;

¶37

a) The petitioners shall report before the

¶38

investigating officer between 10 a.m. and 11 a.m. on all Tuesdays for a period of two months.

¶39

b) The petitioners shall not leave the

¶40

B.A.Nos.5337 & 6789 of 2016 5

¶41

jurisdictional limits of the Keezhvaipur Police Station for

¶42

two months.

¶43

c) The petitioners shall not in any manner

¶44

influence or intimidate the material witnesses, or they shall not have any contact with the material witnesses directly or over telephone or otherwise.

Sd/P.UBAID, JUDGE

rkj

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

Kuttappan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kuttappan 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

Faizal Vs State of Kerala

Vignesh.H.Venki Vs State of Kerala

Soji Vs State of Kerala

Rajendran Vs State of Kerala

Mohammed Firos @ Firos @ Babu Vs the State of Kerala

Shinoj K G Vs State of Kerala