Allowed

Kripesh .K v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC10 Feb 2016Bail Appl./741/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is an order allowing bail to accused persons under strict conditions. The court noted conflicting charges (multiple FIRs) where both sides sustained injuries from dangerous weapons. It ordered bail subject to a bond, investigation appearance, and local bail posting.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed subject to payment of bond of Rs. 75,000/- each with two sureties, appearing before investigation officer, and staying in the area.

Kripesh .K Vs State of Kerala — Cheating and Forgery | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/21ST MAGHA, 1937

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 741 of 2016

¶6

CRIME NO. 25/2016 OF BEKAL POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NOS.1, 3 AND 8:

¶8

1. KRIPESH .K, AGED 29 YEARS,

¶9

S/O.KRISHNAN, THOTTATHIL HOUSE,

¶10

KEEKAN, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

¶11

2. SHIJU K, AGED 20 YEARS,

¶12

S/O.RAMESHAN, KATTAMBALLI HOUSE, KEEKAN, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

¶13

3. SHIBULAL, AGED 19 YEARS, S/O.CHOYIKUNHI, THOTTATHIL HOUSE,

¶14

KEEKKAN, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

¶15

BY ADVS.SRI.M.SASINDRAN

¶16

SRI.A.ARUNKUMAR

¶17

RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT & STATE:

¶18

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 682 031.

¶19

2. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, (CRIME NO.25/2016 OF BEKAL POLICE STATION) KASARAGOD DISTRICT - 671 121.

¶20

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.T.Y.LALIZA

¶21

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10-02-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

mbr/

¶23

SUNIL THOMAS, J

¶24

B.A.NO.741 OF 2016

¶25

Dated this the 10^th day of February, 2016

¶26

O R D E R

¶27

The petitioners are the accused Nos.1,3 and 8 in Crime No.25/2016 of Bekal Police Station for the offences under Sections 3143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 307 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶28

The allegation of the prosecution is that on 14.01.2016 at about 5.30 pm, the petitioners herein formed into an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons and attacked a group of other persons. They sustained injuries. The petitioners were arrested on 17.01.2016. They seek bail.

¶29

The learned Public Prosecutor opposing the application stated that four persons had sustained injury. Per contra, the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that they were the injured persons and the defacto complainant and a group of persons had attacked

¶30

them, at the same place and the same time. To substantiate the argument, the learned counsel referred

¶31

¶32

B.A.NO.741 OF 2016

¶33

to Crime No.26 of 2016.

¶34

The records in the present case show that four persons had sustained injuries. It appears that sword and iron rod were used. In the present case, one person had sustained abrasion on the shoulder and on the forehead, and the another person, laceration on the leg, and abrasion on the right eye. Third person had sustained laceration on the body with tenderness and the last person had sustained laceration over the parietal region. It cannot be stated the injuries are not very simple.

¶35

On the other hand, a counter case has been registered as Crime No.26/2016 wherein, it appears that there is an allegation of use of sharp weapon or sword. In that, one person had sustained lacerated wounds on two of the arms. Specific allegation of use of the sword is referred in the wound certificate. Another person had sustained injury on the forearm and had an abrasion. The third person had also sustained few other injuries on the body. It appears that there had been exchange of blows and attack and counter attack.

¶36

The learned Public Prosecutor further submitted

¶37

B.A.NO.741 OF 2016 3

¶38

that the first accused is involved in one case and the accused Nos.3 and 8 are involved in two other cases and S.107 Cr.P.C. proceedings are initiated against them. However, having regard to the existence of case and counter case that both sides had sustained injuries and having considered the progress made in the investigation, I feel that bail can now be granted to the petitioners subject to the following strict conditions:-

¶39

(a) The petitioners shall execute a bond for a

¶40

sum of Rs.75,000/- (Rupees seventy five thousand only) each with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.

¶41

(b) They shall appear before the investigation officer on all Mondays and Saturdays between 9 am and 10 am for a period of three months from the date of their release.

¶42

(c ) During the above period of three months,

¶43

they shall not enter the limits of Bekal Police

¶44

Station except for the compliance of the above condition or for appearance in a court of law

¶45

¶46

B.A.NO.741 OF 2016

¶47

where their appearance is essentially required.

¶48

(d) They shall not threaten, coerce or intimidate the de facto complainant and the witnesses nor shall they interfere in the process of investigation.

¶49

(e) They shall not get involved in any other identical offence.

¶50

The bail application is allowed as above.

¶51

sd/- SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE.

¶52

R.AV

¶53

//True Copy//

¶54

PA to Judge

Kripesh .K v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kripesh .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

Giri Nair Vs State of Kerala

Ananthu Vs State of Kerala

Santhosh Vs Sub Inspector of Police

Abbas Vs State of Kerala

Raveendran Vs State of Kerala

Prasad Vs State of Kerala