Allowed

Jayakumar K. v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC18 Aug 2016Bail Appl./5588/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed an anticipatory bail application filed by the 11th accused in a criminal case involving sections 143, 147, and 307 IPC. The petitioner was directed to appear for investigation and salute the court periodically.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail upon execution of bond for Rs. 25,000 with two sureties to the satisfaction of the officer concerned, directed to appear before IO and appear Saturdays for two months.

Jayakumar K. Vs the 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 RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF AUGUST 2016/27TH SRAVANA, 1938

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 5588 of 2016 ()

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER IN Bail Appl. 1888/2016 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 28-03-2016

¶7

CRIME NO. 2106/2014 OF KUNNAMKULAM POLICE STATION , TRISSUR

¶8

PETITIONER(S):

¶9

JAYAKUMAR K., S/O.RAMAN NAIR, AGED 44 YEARS, RESIDING AT VADAKKEKARAMIL HOUSE, KADANGODU POST, ERUMAPETTY, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 534.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON SRI.P.S.APPU SRI.A.R.NIMOD

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

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

¶13

2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KUNNAMKULAM POLICE STATION, KUNNAMKULAM, THRISSUR - 680 503.

¶14

R BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.PUSHPALATHA M.K.

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18-08-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

¶17

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., J

¶18

¶19

B.A. No. 5588 of 2016

¶20

¶21

Dated 18^th August, 2016

¶22

¶23

ORDER

¶24

1.This petition is filed under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the petitioner, who is the 11^th accused in Crime No.2106 of 2014 of Kunnamkulam Police Station. He along with others are alleged to have committed offences punishable under sections 143, 147, 341, 323, 325 and 307 read with section 149 of the IPC.

¶25

2.The crux of the prosecution allegation is that on 7.9.2014 at about 10 p.m. the de facto complainant and his friends went to the KR bar at Perumbilavu and after consuming alcohol refused to pay the bill. They were restrained by the employees of the bar. Some altercation took place between the de facto complainant and his friends on one side and the employees of the bar on the other side. Being aggrieved, the de facto complainant and his friends caused damage to the motor bike of the 4^th accused and also the car of the 6^th accused. Thereafter, the accused Nos.1 to 6 and 11 and 12

¶26

B.A No.5588 of 2016 2

¶27

are alleged to have assaulted the de facto complainant causing injuries.

¶28

3.I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor and have perused the records.

¶29

4.The petitioner along with accused Nos. 8 and 10 had earlier approached this Court seeking pre-arrest bail and this Court as per Annexure-A order dated had dismissed the application in so far as the petitioner is concerned. It is submitted that this Court as per order dated 30.6.2016 in B.A.No.4447 of 2016 had taken note of a settlement which was arrived at between accused and de facto complainant and had granted reliefs to accused Nos. 2, 3 and 6. It is also submitted that by order dated 20.7.2016 in B.A.No.4448 of 2016, relief was granted to the 5^th accused taking note of the settlement. The prayer is that the petitioner herein stands in the same footing and relief be granted to him as well.

¶30

5.It appears that the petitioner herein who is arrayed as the

¶31

11^th accused stands in the same footing as accused 2, 3 and 6 in B.A.No.4447 of 2016. I do not find any reason as to why

¶32

the prayer sought for is to be refused. In the said facts and

¶33

B.A No.5588 of 2016

¶34

¶35

circumstances, following order is passed:

¶36

i. The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer within ten days of this order. On such appearance, the Investigating Officer is at liberty to interrogate the petitioner. After interrogation, if the police officer feels that this is a case where arrest is necessary, he is at liberty to arrest the petitioner. After arrest, if any recovery is necessary that also can be made. Thereafter the petitioner shall be released on bail on the petitioner executes a bond for Rs.25,000/(Rupees twenty five thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the officer concerned. After release on bail, the petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Saturdays in between 10.00 am and 12.00 noon for a period of two months.

¶37

ii. The petitioner shall not commit any offence during the bail period.

¶38

B.A No.5588 of 2016

¶39

¶40

iii. The petitioner shall not influence or

¶41

intimidate the witnesses.

¶42

iv. The petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation.

¶43

On the above conditions, this anticipatory bail application

¶44

is allowed. Violation of any of the conditions will entail cancellation of bail.

¶45

Sd/- RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., JUDGE

¶46

Jayakumar K. v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jayakumar K. v. the 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

Raju Vs State of Kerala

Subair Vs Roopesh

Babu Vs State of Kerala

M.M.Abdul Salam Vs Sub Inspector of Police

Siemens Limited Vs State of Kerala

Sreejith Vs Ibrahim Haji