Allowed

Sunil v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC2 Mar 2016Bail Appl./762/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allowed the application for pre-arrest bail to the first accused in a case under Section 326 IPC. The court was inclined to grant bail due to material casting doubt on the prosecution allegation, suggesting injuries resulted from a road traffic accident rather than an assault.

What did the court decide?

Pre-arrest bail allowed subject to appearing before the Investigating Officer, executing a bond of Rs. 40,000 with two sureties, and not intimidating witnesses.

Sunil 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 2ND DAY OF MARCH 2016/12TH PHALGUNA, 1937

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 762 of 2016 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 697/2015 OF KOTTAYI POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶7

PETITIONER/1ST ACCUSED:

¶8

SUNIL, AGED 22 YEARS, S/O.KUNJAN, ELAYATHUDI HOUSE, KARIYAMKODE, KOTTAYI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN.

¶10

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶11

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, REPRESENTING SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOTTAYI POLICE STATION IN CRIME NO.697/2015.

¶12

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.R. REMA.

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02-03-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

rs.

SUNIL THOMAS, J.

=================

B.A.No.762 of 2016

¶18

=================

¶19

Dated this the 2^nd day of March, 2016

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Petitioner herein is the first accused in Crime No.697 of 2015 of Kottayi Police Station for offence punishable under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶22

The allegation of the prosecution is that on 05.11.2015 at about 8 p.m. petitioner herein and two other persons wrongfully restrained the de facto complainant and assaulted him with a copper bangle. De facto complainant sustained fracture of the nasal bone. On the basis of the complaint lodged, crime was registered and petitioner herein apprehends arrest.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the allegation against him is a absolute false one. It is stated that in fact, he was attacked by the de facto complainant and others, regarding which, a counter case has been registered as Crime No.668 of 2015 of Kottayi Police Station for various bailable offences. The wound certificate indicates that the de facto complainant herein was admitted in the Medical College Hospital on 06.11.2015 at 10.20p.m. In that, there is a reference that he

¶24

B.A.762/16

¶25

¶26

was attacked by three people including the petitioner herein. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that in fact he had sustained the injuries in a road transport accident, which will be evidenced by the prior records and the wound certificate issued by the Department of Surgery, Medical College Hospital. Subsequently, discharge summary of the Medical College Hospital, Palakkad was called for, which indicates that the de facto complainant herein was admitted in the hospital on 06.11.2015 at about 12.04a.m. and was discharged on 06.11.2015. There was no abnormality detected except for soft tissue contusion and cause was stated as an alleged RTA. In the light of the above material casting doubt on the allegation of the de facto complainant, I am inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner herein subject to the following conditions.

¶27

(i) Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer within ten days from today and shall undergo interrogation. If he is proposed to be arrested, he shall be released on bail on he executing a bond for a sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand only) with two sureties for the like sum each.

¶28

(ii) He shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required for interrogation.

¶29

B.A.762/16

¶30

¶31

(iii) He shall not get involved in any other identical offence and shall not threaten, coerce or intimidate the de facto complainant or his witnesses.

¶32

The anticipatory bail application is allowed as above.

¶33

Sd/- SUNIL THOMAS Judge

¶34

Sbna/2/3/16

¶35

True Copy

¶36

P A to Judge

Sunil v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil 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

Mohanan Vs State of Kerala

Jasimu V.Y. Vs the State of Kerala

Liby Mathew Vs State of Kerala

Vaisakh Vs State of Kerala

Mukesh Vs State of Kerala

Falalul Abideen @ Babu Vs the State of Kerala