Partly allowed

Aneeshkumar M.G. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC27 Jan 2016Bail Appl./62/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge Bench dismissed pre-arrest bail for the first accused but granted anticipatory bail to the remaining three accused. The court relied on medical evidence and physical evidence suggesting the prosecution version was credible against the first accused.

What did the court decide?

Bail application of the 1st petitioner dismissed. Anticipatory bail granted to petitioners 2, 3 and 4 upon executing bond with two sureties and complying with conditions for interrogation and cooperat

Aneeshkumar M.G. 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 SUNIL THOMAS

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016/7TH MAGHA, 1937

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 62 of 2016

¶6

CRIME NO. 1650/2015 OF PULIKEEZHU POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTITTA

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NOS:1,2,3 AND 4:

¶8

---------------------------------------------------------------

¶9

1. ANEESHKUMAR M.G., AGED 34,

¶10

S/O.GOPINATHA MENON, MANGALATHARA HOUSE,

¶11

CHATHENKERY P.O., THIRUVALLA TALUK.

¶12

2. GOPINATHA MENON, AGED 74, S/O.NANU PILLAI, MANGALATHARA HOUSE, CHATHENKERY P.O.,

¶13

THIRUVALLA.

¶14

3. AMMINI G.MENON, AGED 65 YEARS,

¶15

W/O.GOPINATHA MENON, MANGALATHARA HOUSE,

¶16

CHATHENKERY P.O., THIRUVALLA.

¶17

4. NISHARANI R. NAIR, AGED 28 YEARS, W/O.ANEESH KUMAR, MANGALATHARA HOUSE, CHATHENKERY P.O.,

¶18

THIRUVALLA.

¶19

BY ADVS.SRI.N.P.PRAJEESH SRI.BIJO THOMAS GEORGE

¶20

RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT:

¶21

------------------------------------------------

¶22

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PULIKEEZH POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶23

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.R.REMA

¶24

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27-01-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

msv/

¶26

SUNIL THOMAS, J. =================== B.A. No.62 of 2016

¶27

=======================

¶28

Dated this the 27^th day of January, 2016

¶29

ORDER

¶30

Petitioners are the accused Nos. 1 to 4 in Crime No.1650/2015 of Pulikeezh Police Station for offences punishable under suctions 323, 326, 447, 294 and 506(i) read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.

¶31

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

¶32

and defacto complainant who had filed Crl.M.A.349/2016. Crl.M.A. is closed.

¶33

The allegation of the prosecution is that accused on 21.12.2015 trespassed into the house of the defacto complainant and attacked him and his wife. It is alleged that in the course of it, using a ladder they caused injury on the head of the defacto complainant. Pursuant to the crime registered, Police is investigating and the petitioner apprehends arrest.

¶34

The learned counsel for the petitioner contended

¶35

B.A. No.62 of 2016 2

¶36

that infact the petitioners herein were attacked by the defacto complainant and others and had caused bodily injuries. A counter case was registered as Crime No.1651/2015 of the same police station. It was further contended that it was unbelievable that an iron ladder was used as a weapon.

¶37

The scene of occurrence in the present crime

¶38

is the property of the defacto complainant. The time mentioned there is 3.00 clock. In the counter case also allegedly the incident had happened at the same time in the premises of the petitioner herein. It is pertinent to note that defacto complainant had sustained injury at that point of time mentioned in the counter case and the wound certificate indicates that he was seen by doctor at 3.35 pm on that day. He had sustained 7 cm incised wound on skull. He had acute bleeding. The list of property shows that iron ladder had been seized and it has a length of 3 m and 65 cm. In the counter case no substantial injury is seen caused and no dangerous weapon is also seen used.

¶39

Even in the FIR as well as in the wound certificate there is a

¶40

B.A. No.62 of 2016 3

¶41

reference that injury was caused by the 1^st petitioner herein.

¶42

Having regard to this fact, I am not inclined to grant bail to the 1^st petitioner. Since no specific over-tact is attributed to accused Nos 2, 3 and 4, I am inclined to grant bail. Hence the petition is allowed in part.

¶43

(1) The pre-arrest bail application of the 1^st

¶44

petitioner (1^st accused) is dismissed.

¶45

Remaining petitioners are granted anticipatory bail as follows:-

¶46

(i) Petitioners 2, 3 and 4 shall appear before the Investigating Officer within ten days from today and shall undergo interrogation. Thereafter if they are proposed to be arrested, he shall be released on bail on they executing a bond for a sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty thousand only) with two sureties for the like sum each.

¶47

(ii) They shall not threaten, coerce or

¶48

B.A. No.62 of 2016 4

¶49

intimidate the defacto complainant or his witnesses.

¶50

(iii) They shall appear before the Investigating Officer between 9 am and 10 am on all Mondays for a period of one month from the date of executing the bond and co-operate with the investigation.

¶51

Bail application is party allowed.

¶52

SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE

¶53

SKV

Aneeshkumar M.G. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aneeshkumar M.G. 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

Vinod Vs the State of Kerala

Dilshad P. Vs State of Kerala

Nasarudheen M.U Vs the State of Kerala

Shinu Vs State of Kerala

Saravanan Vs State of Kerala

Paul Antony Vs State of Kerala