Partly allowed

Rakesh v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC19 Jan 2016Bail Appl./69/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed bail in part for accused Nos. 3 to 5 in a criminal case involving political enmity and hurt. Bail was denied to accused Nos. 1 and 2 due to specific overt acts and use of weapons attributed to them, while accused Nos. 3 to 5 were granted bail under strict conditions.

What did the court decide?

Bail denied to accused Nos. 1 and 2. Bail granted to accused Nos. 3 to 5 subject to bond, sureties, appearance conditions, and restrictions on movement and interference.

Rakesh Vs State of Kerala — Quashing and FIR | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016/29TH POUSHA, 1937

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 69 of 2016 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 2040/2015 OF OACHIRA POLICE STATION , KOLLAM DISTRICT

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NOS. 1 TO 5:

¶8

1. RAKESH, S/O RAJAN, AGED 28 YEARS, CHANAPPILLITHARAYIL HOUSE, PERINADU MURI, CLAPPANA VILLAGE (A1)

¶9

2. RANJITH, S/O. RAVEENDRAN,AGED 20 YEARS, KOVILAKATHU HOUSE, VARAVILA MURI, CLAPPANA VILLAGE (A2)

¶10

3. SUDHIN @ SUDHI,S/O. SUKESHAN, AGED 22 YEARS, MANGADATHARAYIL HOUSE, CLAPPANA NORTH, CLAPPANA VILLAGE (A3)

¶11

4. ARUN @ KUKKU, S/O. RAMANAN,AGED 21 YEARS, CHIRAYIL PADEETTATHIL HOUSE, PERINADU MURI, CLAPPANA VILLAGE (A4)

¶12

5. MAHESH, S/O.MURALEEDHARAN,AGED 18 YEARS, THUPPASSERIL HOUSE, VARAVILA MURI,

¶13

CLAPPANA VILLAGE (A5)

¶14

BY ADV. SRI.K.SUBASH CHANDRA BOSE

¶15

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶16

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

¶17

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. LALIZA.T.Y.

¶18

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19-01-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

sts

¶20

SUNIL THOMAS, J.

¶21

B. A. No. 69 of 2016

¶22

Dated this the 19^th day of January, 2016

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

The petitioners are the accused Nos.1 to 5 in Crime No.2040/2015 of Oachira Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 308, 506(ii) read with 149 IPC.

¶25

The allegation of the prosecution is that, due to political enmity, on 13.12.2015 at 10.30 p.m., the accused formed into an unlawful assembly and armed with dangerous weapons like iron rod and sword attacked the defacto complainant. He sustained injury and was taken to the hospital. A3 was arrested on 16.12.2015 and the remaining were arrested on 22.12.2015. All the petitioners seek bail

¶26

The FIS and the records indicate that the specific overt act and use of dangerous weapons are attributed to the petitioners 1 and 2. They are also specifically named in the FIS as well as in the wound certificate even. The injured has sustained lacerated wounds on the left and right of the parieto occipital region with 5 x 1 cm and 4 x 1 cm. It appears that injuries were sutured and 8 switches were done. Political rivalry is alleged to

B. A. No. 69 of 2016

be the motive.

Having regard to the nature of specific overt act alleged against the petitioner 1 and 2, I am not inclined to grant bail to them at this stage. However, the remaining petitioners are entitled for bail, having regard to the minor role played by them, though their presence is attributed by the prosecution.

¶31

Hence I am inclined to allow this bail application in part. The bail application of the petitioners 1 and 2 (accused Nos. 1 and 2) stands dismissed. The petitioners 3 to 5 (accused Nos. 3 to 5) are entitled for bail with the following conditions:

¶32

(i) The petitioners 3 to 5 shall be released on bail on each of the petitioner executing a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/(Rupees fifty thousand only) with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court. (ii) The petitioners shall appear before the Investigation Officer on all Saturdays between 10.00 am and 11.00 am till the final charge is laid.

¶33

B. A. No. 69 of 2016

¶34

¶35

(iii) They shall not enter the limits of Oachira Police Station till the final charge is laid except for compliance of the above conditions.

¶36

(iv) They shall not threaten the defacto complainant, coerce or intimidate the witnesses and shall not in any manner interfere with the investigation.

¶37

Sd/SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE.

¶38

¶39

/True Copy/

¶40

P.A to Judge

Rakesh v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rakesh 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

Majeed Vs State of Kerala

Anilkumar Vs State of Kerala

Suresh Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Nikul Vs State of Kerala

Sunilkumar Vs State of Kerala

Ranjeesh Vs State of Kerala