Partly allowed

Sujith v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC4 Jan 2016Bail Appl./7758/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Honourable Court rejected the anticipatory bail application of the first and third petitioners, holding that unrecovered weapons hampered the investigation. Bail was granted to the second accused, who allegedly threw chilly powder, subject to specific conditions including appearance for interrogation and non-coercion.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail rejected for first and third accused; granted to second accused subject to conditions of interrogation and surrender.

Sujith Vs State of Kerala — Anticipatory Bail | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

¶4

MONDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016/14TH POUSHA, 1937

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 7758 of 2015 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 1832/2015 OF ANGAMALY POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED :

¶8

1. SUJITH S/O. SUDHAKARAN, KANDESWARATH KALARIKKAL, AZHAKOM MOOKANNOOR.

¶9

2. HARIKRISHNAN, AGED 22 YEARS S/O. GOPALAN, KANDESWARATH KALARIKKAL, AZHAKOM MOOKANNOOR.

¶10

3. AJI B.NAIR, AGED 21 YEARS S/O. VIJAYAN PILLAI, VISHNU BHAVAN, KOOVAPPADY.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.KRISHNADAS P. NAIR

¶12

RESPONDENT :

¶13

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

¶14

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. R. REMA

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04-01-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

¶17

SUNIL THOMAS, J.

¶18

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

¶19

B.A.No.7758 of 2015

¶20

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

¶21

Dated this the 04^th day of January, 2016

¶22

ORDER

¶23

Petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 3 in Crime No.1832 of 2015 of Angamaly Police Station for offences punishable under Sections.143, 144, 148, 341, 323, 324 and 326 r/w Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶24

According to the prosecution, due to previous enmity, petitioners, along with the fourth accused waylaid the de facto complainant and his friend who were proceeding on a motor cycle. The second accused thrown chilly powder on their face and others attacked them. It is alleged that iron rod and sticks were used. The injured was taken to the hospital, wherein, it was revealed that he had sustained communited fracture of the leg. Petitioners seek anticipatory bail.

¶25

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that all are college students and the fourth accused was granted bail. Previous enmity is attributed as the motive for the incident. The weapons used are stick and iron rod which have not been recovered. Since the first and third accused are sought to have

¶26

B.A.7758/15

¶27

¶28

used iron rod and sticks and that is yet to be recovered, granting of anticipatory bail to them may hamper the investigation. Hence, I am not inclined grant anticipatory bail to them. The allegation against the second accused stands on a different footing. Having regard to the specific allegation that the second accused had only thrown chilly powder, I am inclined to take a lenient view and to grant bail to the second accused but subject to the following conditions.

¶29

(i) The second accused shall appear before the Investigating Officer within ten days from today and shall undergo interrogation. After undergoing interrogation, in the event of his arrest, he shall be released on bail on executing a bond for a sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand only) with two sureties for the like sum each.

¶30

(ii) Second accused shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called for and shall not threaten, coerce or intimidate the de facto complainant and his witnesses.

¶31

The anticipatory bail application of the first and third accused

¶32

shall stand rejected.

¶33

Sd/- SUNIL THOMAS, Judge

¶34

Sbna

¶35

True Copy /

¶36

P.A to Judge

Sujith v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sujith 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

Mini Vijayan Vs State of Kerala

B.Christopher Vs Ushan Sudevan

Assistant Commissioner Vs Shri.Kallidumbil Abdul Rahiman

Shaji K.A Vs State of Kerala

Raveendran Vs State of Kerala

Nishanth G.Tharakan Vs State of Kerala