Allowed

Manikandan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC4 Mar 2016Bail Appl./617/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Section 302 IPC, the High Court granted bail to the accused, noting the substantial completion of investigation and initial injuries sustained by the complainant, subject to standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted on a bond of Rs. 70,000 with two sureties for Rs. 70,000 each, periodic appearance before the IO, and non-interference with witnesses.

Manikandan Vs State of Kerala — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH 2016/14TH PHALGUNA, 1937

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 617 of 2016 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 2095/2015 OF VADAKKENCHERRY POLICE STATION,PALAKKAD DISTRICT

¶7

APPLICANT/ACCUSED :

¶8

MANIKANDAN, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O.PAZHANIMALA, KOLAMKODE VEEDU, KAVARATHARA, PATTODA, PALAKKAD.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.V.A.JOHNSON (VARIKKAPPALLIL)

¶10

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANAT:

¶11

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

¶12

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.RASHEED

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04-03-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

sts

¶15

SUNIL THOMAS, J.

¶16

B. A. No. 617 of 2016

¶17

Dated this the 4^th day of March, 2016

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

The petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No. 2095/2015 of Vadakkencherry Police Station for offences punishable under Section 302 of the IPC.

¶20

The allegation of the prosecution is that, on 20.12.2015 at 2.30 p.m., the petitioner herein quarreled with his father after consuming liquor and kicked on the various parts with a stick. He succumbed to the injuries. The petitioner herein was arrested on 22.12.2015 and is in custody since then.

¶21

Evidently, this is a case wherein the father was murdered by the son. The petitioner has a case that he was exercising his right of self defence. It was also pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, he had sustained an injury, indicating that the father had attacked him initially.

¶22

Without making any comments on the above contention, having regard to the fact that the substantial part of the investigation is over, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner on the following conditions:

¶23

B. A. No. 617 of 2016

¶24

¶25

(i) The petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.70,000/- (Rupees seventy thousand only) with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.

¶26

(ii) He shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Mondays and Fridays between 9.00 am and 10.00 am for a period of two months from the date of his release.

¶27

(iii) He shall not threaten, coerce or intimidate the defacto complainant and the

¶28

witnesses nor shall he interfere in the process of investigation

¶29

Sd/-

¶30

SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE.

¶31

¶32

True Copy

¶33

P A to Judge

Manikandan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manikandan 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

Sreekumar Vs State of Kerala

Devidasan Vs State of Kerala

Thyagarajan Vs State of Kerala

Arun B Vs State of Kerala

Shaji Vs State of Kerala

Thankamani Vs the Sub Inspector of Police