Partly allowed

Sasi v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC16 Feb 2016Bail Appl./563/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed an anticipatory bail application in part. Bail was granted to petitioners 1, 3, 4, and 6 (Accused 1, 5, and 6), while the bail of the second petitioner (Accused 2), who used a weapon, was dismissed. Conditions for release include appearance before the IO and restraining threats.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed for petitioners 1, 3, 4, and 6 on bond with sureties and regular appearance; anticipatory bail dismissed for petitioner 2.

Sasi Vs State of Kerala — Anticipatory Bail | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/27TH MAGHA, 1937

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 563 of 2016

¶6

CRIME NO. 71/2016 OF ATTINGAL POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED 1,2,5 AND 6:

¶8

1. SASI, AGED 64 YEARS,

¶9

S/O. PODIYAN, PODIYAN VILA VEEDU, VALIYAKUNNU, ATTINGAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶10

2. RAJU, AGED 51 YEARS,

¶11

S/O. PODIYAN, PODIYAN VILA VEEDU, VALIYAKUNNU, ATTINGAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶12

3. RAJESH, AGED 29 YEARS, S/O. VISWAMBARAN, PODIYAN VILA VEEDU, VALIYAKUNNU, ATTINGAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶13

4. BIJU, AGED 34 YEARS, S/O. SASI, PODIYAN VILA VEEDU, VALIYAKUNNU, ATTINGAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶14

BY ADV. SRI.P.ANOOP (MULAVANA)

¶15

RESPONDENT:

¶16

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA.

¶17

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.T.Y.LALIZA

¶18

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16-02-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

¶20

SUNIL THOMAS, J.

¶21

B.A.No. 563 of 2016

¶22

Dated this the 16^th day of February, 2016

¶23

ORDER

¶24

The petitioners are the accused nos.1, 2, 5 and 6 in Crime No.71/2016 of Attingal Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 149, 294(b), 323, 324, 354 of IPC.

¶25

The allegation of the prosecution is that on 06.06.2016, the petitioner attacked the de facto complainant and her husband. It is alleged that the 1^st accused slapped on the face of the de facto complainant and the 2^nd accused using a sharp weapon caused injury on the body of the husband of the de facto complainant. The husband of the de facto complainant sustained a lacerated wound in the wrist of 2x0.5 cm. On the basis of the complaint lodged, crime was registered. The main overtact is attributed to the 2^nd accused, who had used a sharp weapon to cause injury. According to the de facto complainant, a knife was used. The weapon used has not been recovered.

¶26

¶27

B.A.No. 563 of 2016

¶28

Having regard to the nature of allegation and

¶29

the weapon used, I am not inclined to grant bail to the 2^nd petitioner herein, though the others are entitled for bail. The petition is allowed in part as follows.

¶30

The anticipatory bail application of the 2^nd petitioner is dismissed.

¶31

The anticipatory bail application of the remaining petitioners are allowed as follows:

¶32

(a) Petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer within ten days from today and shall undergo interrogation. Thereafter, if they are proposed to be arrested,

¶33

they shall be released on bail on each executing a bond for a sum of Rs.40,000/(Rupees forty thousand only) with two sureties for the like sum each.

¶34

(b) They shall not threaten, coerce or intimidate the de facto complainant or his witnesses.

¶35

(c ) The petitioners shall appear before the

¶36

B.A.No. 563 of 2016

¶37

¶38

Investigation Officer on all Mondays between

¶39

9.00 a.m. and 10.00 a.m. for a period of two

¶40

months from the date of execution of the bond

¶41

as above.

¶42

In the event of the 2^nd petitioner surrendering,

¶43

any bail application filed by him may be considered on the same day by the learned Magistrate.

¶44

The bail application is allowed in part as above.

¶45

Sd/- SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE

¶46

//TRUE COPY//

¶47

P.A TO JUDGE

¶48

Sasi v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sasi 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

Pramod K Vs State of Kerala

Chandu Vs State of Kerala

Kusalaksha Vs Station House Officer

Ratheesh Vs State of Kerala

Sudheer Vs the State of Kerala

K.a.Dhili Mon Vs State of Kerala