Allowed

Ratheesh v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC8 Jan 2016Bail Appl./7419/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail Application by two accused persons in a criminal case initiated by an allegation of attack involving a crowbar and subsequent counter-case by the de facto complainant. The Court granted pre-arrest bail subject to undertakings regarding appearance before the investigation officer and prohibitions on intimidating the complainant.

What did the court decide?

Grant of pre-arrest bail subject to execution of bond for Rs. 40,000 each, appearance before Investigation Officer, and undertaking not to threaten the complainant.

Ratheesh 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

FRIDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016/18TH POUSHA, 1937

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 7419 of 2015

¶6

CRIME NO. 457/2015 OF RAMANKARY POLICE STATION , ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED :

¶8

1. RATHEESH, AGED 31 YEARS, S/O.RAJU, VATTAKULAM, KUMARAMKERY, VELIYANAD, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶9

2. RAJEEV @ KOCHUMON, AGED 24 YEARS, S/O.RAJU, VATTAKULAM, KUMARAMKERY, VELIYANAD, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.P.PRAMEL

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/STATE :

¶12

1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031\ (CRIME NO.457/2015 OF RAMANKARY POLICE STATION).

¶13

2. STATION HOUSE OFFICER, RAMANKARY POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT -689 595. (CRIME NO.457/2015 OF RAMANKARY POLICE STATION).

¶14

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.T.Y.LALIZA

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08-01-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

Msd.

¶17

SUNIL THOMAS, J.

¶18

== == == == == == == B.A.No. 7419 of 2015

¶19

== == == == == == == == == == == == Dated this the 8^th day of January, 2016

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

The petitioners are the accused in Crime No.457 of 2015 for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 323, 324, 427 and 452 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.

¶22

The allegation of the prosecution is that the petitioners initially attacked the husband of the defacto complainant, who was the licencee for running a toddy shop. Thereafter, they were directed to move away from the shop by the defacto complainant, who then moved to his house, which was near by. It is alleged that the accused trespassed into the house and attacked both husband and son. The husband sustained bodily injuries. It is alleged that a crowbar was used. On the basis of the complaint lodged, crime was registered and the police is investigating. The wound certificate indicates that the husband of the defacto complainant had sustained lacerated wound on the scalp, the temporal region, 2x1x1 c.m. with an abrasion of the left arm. This is countered by the learned counsel for the petitioners alleging that in fact the petitioners herein were attacked by the husband of the defacto complainant and one among them had sustained serious injuries. A

¶23

--2--

¶24

B.A.No. 7419 of 2015

¶25

counter case has been registered on the basis of a statement given by the injured, which is seen on record as Crime No.461/2015 for offences punishable under Section 294(b), 323, 324 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code. The body note attached to the FIS, indicates that the complainant therein had sustained an injury on the head. His brother, who was the other accused, had also sustained injury on the head. Evidently, there has been an exchange of blows. Even though in the present crime there is an allegation that a crowbar has been used, the subsequent note indicates that a concrete piece was used, which has been recovered from the spot.

¶26

Having regard to the entire facts, I feel that the petitioners can be granted the benefit of pre-arrest bail. Hence the petition is allowed as follows:

¶27

(i) The petitioners shall appear before the Investigation Officer within 10 days from today.

¶28

(ii) The petitioners shall execute a bond for a sum of ₹40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand only) each with two sureties for the like sum each.

¶29

(iii) The petitioners shall appear before the Investigation Officer on all Wednesdays between 9

¶30

--3--

¶31

B.A.No. 7419 of 2015

¶32

and 10 a.m. for a period of one month from the date

¶33

of execution of the bond as above.

¶34

(iv) The petitioners shall not threaten, coerce or

¶35

intimidate the defecto complainant and the witnesses.

¶36

Sd/-

¶37

SUNIL THOMAS JUDGE

¶38

skr

Ratheesh v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ratheesh 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

Sugathan Vs State of Kerala

Rensu Vs State of Kerala

M.S. Faisal Vs State of Kerala

Vineeth a. Vs State of Kerala

Sakeer Hussain Vs State of Kerala

Abhilash Chandran Vs State of Kerala