Dismissed

Manoj v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC28 Jan 2016Bail Appl./73/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge dismissed the bail application of an accused facing offences for voluntarily causing hurt and voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons without intent to destroy life, rejecting pre-arrest bail but allowing a conditional surrender and further interrogation.

What did the court decide?

Bail application dismissed; petitioner allowed to surrender to police, undergo interrogation, and then appear before Magistrate for bail consideration.

Manoj 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

THURSDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016/8TH MAGHA, 1937

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 73 of 2016

¶6

CRIME NO. 2428/2015 OF KURUPPAMPADY POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:

¶8

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

¶9

MANOJ, AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.SANKARAN, KUDILINGALKUDY HOUSE, KURUPPAMPADY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADVS.DR.K.P.SATHEESAN (SR.)

¶11

SRI.P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM) SRI.ANOOP.V.NAIR

¶12

RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT:

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KURUPPAMPADY POLICE STATION, KURUPPAMPADY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶16

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.T.Y.LALIZA

¶17

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28-01-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

msv/

¶19

SUNIL THOMAS, J.

¶20

B. A. No. 73 of 2016

¶21

Dated this the 28^th day of January, 2016

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.2428/2015 of Kuruppampady Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 232, 324 of IPC.

¶24

The allegation of the prosecution is that, the petitioner herein had drunken altercation with his uncle. When the defacto complainant intervened, he was slapped by the petitioner herein and thereafter he went to a nearby shop, took out a knife and used it injure the defacto complainant. He sustained injury. The wound certificate indicates that there was only a probable vessel injury. It appears that there is an indication that he also had a smell of alcohol. After suturing he was discharged on the same day.

¶25

Having regard to the nature of allegations and the fact that the weapon used has not been recovered, I feel that this is not a fit case for granting the benefit of pre-arrest bail. However, in the eventuality of the petitioner surrendering before the Police and undergoing interrogation, he shall thereafter produced before the learned Magistrate who shall consider his bail application on the same day, having regard to

¶26

B. A. No. 73 of 2016

¶27

¶28

the fact that the injury was not on a very vital part of the body.

¶29

Bail application is accordingly dismissed.

¶30

Sd/-

¶31

SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE.

¶32

/true copy/

¶33

P. A. to Judge

¶34

Manoj v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Aneeshkumar M.G. Vs State of Kerala

Shinu Vs State of Kerala

Saravanan Vs State of Kerala

Rajendran Pillai Vs State of Kerala

Kunjappan @ Pareeth Vs Sub Inspector of Police, Mala Police Station

Shaji K.J Vs State of Kerala