Allowed

Sathya Stephen v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC5 Aug 2016Bail Appl./5601/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed a petition for pre-arrest bail under Section 438 CrPC. The court held that since the injuries were minor and the charge of causing death was unsupported by the injury report, custodial interrogation was not necessary. The petitioners were released on bail with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners released on bail on bond with two sureties for ₹40,000 each, subject to reporting and movement restrictions.

Sathya Stephen 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 P.UBAID

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF AUGUST 2016/14TH SRAVANA, 1938

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 5601 of 2016 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 134/2016 OF PARASSALA POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANDAPURAM DISTRICT

¶7

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

¶8

1. SATHYA STEPHEN, AGED 45 YEARS, ARYANKUZHI VEEDU, PLAVILA MOOLA, CHENKAL VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK.

¶9

2. SUNIL RAJ, AGED 32 YEARS, KARAVAKUZHY VEEDU, PLAVILA MOOLA, CHENKAL VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK.

¶10

3. RAJESH, AGED 26 YEARS, KARAVAKUZHY VEEDU, PLAVILA MOOLA, CHENKAL VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK.

¶11

4. JINU, AGED 22 YEARS, ARYANKUZHI VEEDU, PLAVILA MOOLA, CHENKAL VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.V.PREMCHAND

¶13

RESPONDENT(S):

¶14

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

¶15

2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE PARASSALA POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695026

¶16

R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. LALIZA T.Y.

¶17

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05-08-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

¶19

P.UBAID, J.

¶20

- - - - B.A.No. 5601 of 2016

¶21

¶22

Dated this the 05^th day of August, 2016

¶23

ORDER

¶24

The petitioners herein seek pre-arrest bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the apprehension of arrest and custodial harassment in connection with Crime No. 134 of 2016 of the Parassala Police Station, registered under Sections 341, 323, 308 and 427 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. There is report that the fourth petitioner stands deleted from the array of the accused. So, only the petitioners 1 to 3 are the accused in the above crime.

¶25

The prosecution case is that at about 8.45 p.m. on 27.1.2016, the petitioners 1 to 3 assaulted the defacto complainant, and inflicted injuries on his body with weapons like sword, iron rod etc., with the knowledge of consequence that the injuries may cause death.

¶26

This application for pre-arrest bail is opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor on the ground that

¶27

B.A.No. 5601 of 2016

¶28

-2-

¶29

investigation is at the preliminary stage, that custodial interrogation of the petitioners is absolutely necessary as part of investigation, and that if the accused are now released, they will definitely obstruct the proper and effective investigation.

¶30

On a perusal of the case diary, I find that this is practically a case of assault under Section 324 of IPC. The complainant had sustained only two incised wounds; one over the right upper arm and the other over the back of chest. He had not sustained any serious injury that may cause death, in the alleged incident. It is not known how Section 308 of IPC happened to be incorporated in the FIR in the above circumstances.

¶31

In the result, this petition for pre-arrest bail is allowed. The petitioners are ordered to be released on bail on their executing a bond with two solvent sureties for ₹40,000/- (Rupees Fourty Thousand only) each to the satisfaction of the arresting officer or the learned Magistrate

¶32

B.A.No. 5601 of 2016

¶33

-3-

¶34

having jurisdiction, in case of their arrest in connection with Crime No. 134 of 2016 of the Parassala Police Station. Bail is granted on condition that;

¶35

a) The petitioners shall report before

¶36

the Investigating Officer between 10 a.m. and 11 a.m. on all Thursdays for a period of two months.

¶37

b) The petitioners shall not leave the limits of Parassala Police Station for a period of two months.

¶38

c) The petitioners shall not in any

¶39

manner 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

//True copy//

P.A. to Judge

Sathya Stephen v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sathya Stephen 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

Sandhya Vs State of Kerala

Babu A.L. Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Malik. N.A Vs State of Kerala

Sivaprasad Vs State of Kerala

Aneesh Vs State of Kerala

Sivan Vs State of Kerala