Partly allowed

Nikhil Moolathil v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC17 Feb 2016Bail Appl./627/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala considered a bail petition by nine accused in an assault case involving an iron rod and sticks. The court dismissed bail for the first three accused involved in overt acts but granted pre-arrest bail conditional upon interrogation and surrender of bond for the remaining six.

What did the court decide?

Bail dismissed for petitioners 1-3; granted for petitioners 4-9 upon appearing before Investigating Officer within ten days, executing a bond of Rs.40,000 with two sureties, and satisfying other condi

Nikhil Moolathil Vs the 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

WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/28TH MAGHA, 1937

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 627 of 2016 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 1498/2015 OF PARAPPANANGADI POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT

¶7

-----------

¶8

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:

¶9

1. NIKHIL MOOLATHIL, S/O.NARAYANAN,AGED 21 YEARS, MOOLATHIL HOUSE, NEDUVA, PARAPPANANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶10

2. PRAMAJESH, S/O.PRAKASHAN,AGED 23 YEARS, KALAMPARAMBATH HOUSE, NEDUVA, PARAPPANANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶11

3. PRAJEESH, S/O.KRISHNANKUTTY,AGED 26 YEARS, CHATTIKKAL HOUSE, NEDUVA, PARAPPANANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶12

4. SANTHOSHKUMAR @ JINI, S/O.KUNHUMON, AGED 31 YEARS,

¶13

KALAMPARAMBATH HOUSE, NEDUVA, PARAPPANANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶14

5. UPPINIPURATH NIDHEESH, S/O.SREEDHARAN, AGED 26 YEARS,

¶15

UMMINIPURATH HOUSE, NEDUVA, PARAPPANANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶16

6. KOORIYATTIKKAL RAJESH @ VANNAMPURATH RAJESH, S/O.VELAYUDHAN, AGED 33 YEARS, KOORIYATTIKKAL HOUSE,

¶17

NEDUVA, PARAPPANANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶18

7. LIJEESH, S/O.NARAYANAN,AGED 31 YEARS,

¶19

MANIYALATH HOUSE, NEDUVA, PARAPPANANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶20

8. KUNNAMPARAMBIL RANJITH, S/O.VELAYUDHAN, AGED 20 YEARS,

¶21

KUNNUMPARAMBIL HOUSE, NEDUVA, PARAPPANANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶22

9. PRADEEP, S/O.KRISHNANKUTTY, AGED 22 YEARS, CHATTIKKAL HOUSE, NEDUVA, PARAPPANANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶23

BY ADVS.SRI.BABU S. NAIR

SRI.R.RANJITH

2/-

sts

-2-

BA.NO.627/2016

RESPONDENT(S)/STATE & COMPLAINANT:

¶30

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

¶31

KOCHI-682 031.

¶32

2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PARAPPANANGADI POLICE STATION,

¶33

MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676 303.

¶34

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. LALIZA.T.Y

¶35

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17-02-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶36

sts

¶37

SUNIL THOMAS, J.

¶38

B.A.No.627 of 2016

¶39

Dated this the 17^th day of February, 2016

¶40

ORDER

¶41

The petitioners herein stand as accused in Crime No.1498/2015 of Parappanangadi Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 308 read with Section 149 of IPC.

¶42

According to the de facto complainant, on 23.12.2015 at about 9.30 p.m, the petitioners herein attacked the de facto complainant and caused bodily injuries. It is alleged that the 1^st petitioner had used an iron rod to hit on the head of the de facto complainant, whereas the 2^nd and 3^rd petitioners used stick to cause bodily injuries. The other accused facilitated the commission of crime.

¶43

The wound certificate indicates that the injured had soft tissue injury and was discharged from the hospital on 25.12.2015. In the FIS there is an indication that he had sustained an injury on his scalp which was

¶44

¶45

B.A.No.627 of 2016

¶46

sutured. It appears that another crime was registered on the dame day in relation to an incident happened almost identical to that of the present incident. The above crime is Crime No.1499/2015. In the case at hand, the specific overtacts are attributed to the first three accused.

¶47

Having regard to the nature and the use of

¶48

the weapon, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners nos. 1 to 3 herein. Hence their pre arrest bail application is dismissed. However, in relation to the remaining petitioners namely petitioners nos.4 to 9, I am inclined to grant bail as follows:

¶49

(a) Petitioners 4 to 9 shall appear before the Investigating Officer within ten days from today and shall undergo interrogation. Thereafter, if they are proposed to be arrested,

¶50

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.

¶51

(b) They shall not threaten, coerce or

¶52

B.A.No.627 of 2016

¶53

¶54

intimidate the de facto complainant or his

¶55

witnesses.

¶56

(c) They shall appear before the Investigation Officer on all Saturdays between 9.00 a.m. and 10.00 a.m. for a period of one month from

¶57

the date of execution of bond.

¶58

(d) They shall not get involved in any other crimes.

¶59

The bail application is allowed in part.

¶60

Sd/- SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE

¶61

¶62

//TRUE COPY//

¶63

P.A. TO JUDGE

Nikhil Moolathil v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nikhil Moolathil 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

Ratheesh Vs State of Kerala

Sasi Vs State of Kerala

Sudheer Vs the State of Kerala

Shuhaib Vs the Circle Inspector of Excise

Ajaya Khosh Vs State of Kerala

Varkey Vs State of Kerala