Allowed

Anilkumar v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC23 Aug 2016Bail Appl./5629/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Kerala allowed bail application of 9th accused in a case alleging criminal conspiracy and common intention to cause hurt. Granted anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. requiring execution of a bond with sureties and adherence to specific reporting conditions. Dismissed prosecution allegation of seriousness of injuries.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted on execution of a bond for Rs. 30,000 with two sureties and reporting to Investigation Officer.

Anilkumar 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 B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF AUGUST 2016/1ST BHADRA, 1938

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 5629 of 2016 (C)

¶6

CRIME NO. 1542/2014 OF KATTAKADA POLICE STATION , THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶7

PETITIONER/9TH ACCUSED:

¶8

ANILKUMAR AGED 29 YEARS, S/O. SOMAN, URUVILAKOMKODE ROADARIKATHU VEEDU, ANACODE, VEERANAKAVU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.K.NIRMALAN SRI.A.RAJASIMHAN SMT.SHIMI MOHAN

¶10

RESPONDENT/STATE:

¶11

STATE OF KERALA THROUGH THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE KATTAKKADA POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM

¶12

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SHRI.ALEX M THOMBRA

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23-082016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, J.

¶15

¶16

Bail Application No.5629 of 2016

¶17

- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 23^rd day of August 2016

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

The petitioner is the 8^th accused in Crime No.1542/2014 of Kattakkada Police Station registered under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324 and 308 read with

¶20

Section 149 I.P.C.

¶21

The prosecution allegation is that on 18.12.2014 at about 10 p.m., the petitioner and the other accused attacked the de-facto complainant , his father, brother and friend, causing injuries on them. The first accused used an iron rod and the second accused used a stone to inflict injuries.

¶22

The other accused fisted the injured persons.

¶23

BA 5629/2016 : 2 :

¶24

The petitioner has filed this application praying for

¶25

the relief under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶26

Heard.

¶27

It appears that the names of all the accused, except

¶28

the name of the petitioner, were mentioned in the First Information Statement given by the de-facto complainant . The de-facto complainant also described the incident with minute details in the First Information Statement. At that time, the involvement of the petitioner was not mentioned.

¶29

The petitioner is not involved in any other offence of similar nature. The only non-bailable offence alleged against the accused is the offence under

¶30

BA 5629/2016 : 3 :

¶31

Section 308 I.P.C. It appears from the wound certificate

¶32

appended to the Case Diary that the injured persons did not sustain any serious injury in the incident. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, including the fact that the petitioner is a first time offender and also the overt acts alleged against the petitioner, I am of the view that this is not a case where the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary for the progress of investigation of the case. In the said circumstances, an order under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in favour of the petitioner will be justified in this case.

¶33

In the result, this application stands allowed and the respondent is directed to release the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No.1542/2014 of Kattakkada Police Station on condition of the petitioner

¶34

BA 5629/2016 : 4 :

¶35

executing a bond for Rs.30,000/- /- (Rupees thirty thousand

¶36

only) with two solvent sureties, each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Sub Inspector of Police, Kattakkada Police Station, before whom the petitioner shall surrender within 10 days from today, if not arrested in the meantime, and subject to the following conditions:

¶37

(i) The petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer on every Monday between 9.00 a.m. and 11.00 a.m. for three months and thereafter as and when required by the Investigating Officer for interrogation.

¶38

(ii) The petitioner shall not intimidate or influence the witnesses or in any way tamper with the investigation.

¶39

(iii) The petitioner shall not get involved in any offence while on bail.

¶40

Sd/-

¶41

B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR,

¶42

JUDGE

¶43

dl/23.8.2016

¶44

// True Copy // PA to Judge

Anilkumar v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anilkumar 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

Vannathan Veettil Cheeyayi Vs Excise Inspector

Babu Vs State of Kerala

Arun Anand Vs State of Kerala

Abdulkareem Vs the State of Kerala

Satheesh Vs State of Kerala

Ajayakumar @ Kuttappan Vs State of Kerala