Allowed

Binumon K.K v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC5 Oct 2016Bail Appl./6893/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed a bail application filed by two accused persons facing charges for rash driving, obstruction, and insult to police. The court granted bail on the condition of bond and sureties, noting no serious objections from the prosecution and no allegation of bodily injury.

What did the court decide?

The petitioners were directed to be released on bail by executing a bond and ensuring sureties, subject to conditions of reporting and not tampering with investigation.

Binumon K.K 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

WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/13TH ASWINA, 1938

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 6893 of 2016 ()

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER IN CRMC 1673/2016 of D.C. & SESSIONS COURT,THRISSUR DATED 09-09-2016 CRIME NO. 1480/2016 OF PUDUKKAD POLICE STATION , TRISSUR

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/A1 & A2: ---------------------

¶8

1. BINUMON K.K AGED 45, S/O. KAPIKKARA KURIAKOSE, PERUVA KARA, MULAKULAM VILLAGE, VAIKOM TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶9

2. RAJEEV AGED 40 YEARS, S/O. SAHADEVAN, KAVUMKADAYIL HOUSE, KIZHUMURI KARA, RAYAMANGALAM VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.P.G.MANU (MAMMALASSERY) SRI.SHAJIN S.HAMEED

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/STATE :

¶12

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED THROUGH THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PUDUKKAD POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.

¶13

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. AJITH MURALI

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

¶16

B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, J.

¶17

- - - - B.A. No. 6893 of 2016

¶18

- - - - Dated this the 05^th day of October, 2016

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The petitioners are the accused in Crime No. 1480 of 2016 of Pudukkad Police Station registered under Sections 279, 341, 294(b), 353 and 188 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 117(e) of the KP Act.

¶21

The prosecution allegation can be briefly

¶22

stated as follows:

¶23

The defacto complainant, who was the Sub Inspector of Police, intercepted KSRTC bus bearing Registration No. KL-15-A-1049 on 23.8.2016 at 10.10 a.m., on seeing the rash and negligent driving of the said bus. A Police Constable entered into the said bus. Then, the first petitioner locked the door and thereby prevented the Police Constable from getting down from the bus. The petitioners also abused the police party and prevented them from discharging their official duty.

¶24

B.A. No. 6893 of 2016

¶25

-2-

¶26

The petitioners have filed this application

¶27

under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.

¶28

Heard.

¶29

The learned Public Prosecutor has no

¶30

serious objection in allowing this application. It appears that there is no allegation that the petitioners caused any bodily injury on the defacto complainant or the police party. The petitioners are not involved in any other offence of similar nature, submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that an order under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. in favour of the petitioners will be justified in this case.

¶31

In the result, this application stands allowed and the respondent is directed to release the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in connection with Crime No. 1480 of 2016 of Pudukkad Police Station, on condition of each of the petitioners executing a bond for 30,000/-₹ each (Rupees Thirty Thousand only) with two solvent

¶32

B.A. No. 6893 of 2016

¶33

-3-

¶34

sureties each, each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Sub Inspector of Police, Pudukkad Police Station, before whom the petitioners shall surrender within ten days from today, if not arrested in the meantime and subject to the following further conditions:

¶35

a) The petitioners shall report before the investigating officer on every Sunday between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m. for three months and thereafter, as and when required by the investigating officer for interrogation.

¶36

b) The petitioners shall not get involved in any offence during the pendency of this case.

¶37

c) The petitioners shall not intimidate or influence the witnesses or in any way tamper with the investigation.

¶38

Sd/- B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR JUDGE

¶39

¶40

//True copy//

¶41

P.A. to Judge

Binumon K.K v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Binumon K.K 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

Riyas Kaleel Vs State Ofkerala

Arshad Vs State of Kerala

Mary John Vs State of Kerala

Nasar K.P. Vs State of Kerala

Sujitha Singh Vs State of Kerala

Pradeep M.B. Vs State of Kerala