Partly allowed

Mani T a v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC6 Jan 2016Bail Appl./7918/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single-judge order on separate bail applications before four charges under various IPC sections. The court refused anticipatory bail to the first accused due to specific overt acts hampering investigation. Bail was granted to the second and third accused subject to conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail to first petitioner refused. Bail granted to petitioners 2 and 3 subject to conditions regarding appearance and execution of bond.

Mani T a 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

WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016/16TH POUSHA, 1937

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 7918 of 2015 ()

¶6

------------------------------CRIME NO. 1072/2015 OF ERUMAPETTY POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 3:

¶8

1. MANI T.A., AGED 38 YEARS,S/O.AYYAPPAN, THAZHATHUPURAKKAL HOUSE, PAZHIYOTTUMURI, THRISSUR.

¶9

2. PRAVEEN, AGED 30 YEARS,S/O.AYYAPPAN, THAZHATHUPURAKKAL HOUSE, PAZHIYOTTUMURI,

¶10

THRISSUR.

¶11

3. RAHUL RAJ, AGED 22 YEARS, S/O.RAJAN, KUNNATHUPURAKKAL HOUSE, PAZHIYOTTUMURI, THRISSUR.

¶12

BY ADVS.SRI.A.RANJITH NARAYANAN

¶13

SMT.A.SIMI

¶14

RESPONDENT :

¶15

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE LEARNED PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, REPRESENTING THE S.I. OF POLICE, ERUMAPETTY POLICE STATION, THRISSUR.

¶16

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. R.REMA

¶17

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06-01-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

sts

¶19

SUNIL THOMAS, J.

¶20

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A. No. 7918 of 2015

¶21

¶22

Dated this the 6^th day of January, 2016

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

The petitioners are the accused in Crime No.1072/2015 of Erumapetty police station for offence punishable under Sections 143,147,148,341,323, 324 & 326 read with Section 149 IPC.

¶25

The allegation of the prosecution is that due to a previous enmity, on 29/10/2015 at about 10 p.m., while the defacto complainant was returning from his shop, he was attacked by the petitioners along with two other accused armed with iron pipe and the first accused hit on his body aimed at the head. Since, he moved to one side, other accused caught hold of him and the first accused hit on his leg. He sustained fracture injury and was taken to the hospital. FIS was laid and crime was registered. The petitioners contended that the defacto complainant is involved in several other cases

¶26

BA No.7918/2015

¶27

¶28

and a false case has been foisted against them. Prima facie, it appears that on the date of the incident itself, the defacto complainant had gone to the hospital and got admitted there. He has sustained fracture on the left leg as seen from the body note as well as the discharge summary which is available in the CD. Having regard to the specific overt act against the first accused and that if pre arrest bail is granted to the first accused, the further investigation may be hampered, I am not inclined to grant the benefit to him. However, the allegation against the accused 2 and 3 is comparatively less, though all the accused are sought to be roped in with the aid of Section 149 IPC. Hence, I am inclined to grant bail to accused Nos. 2 and 3 .

¶29

Bail application is allowed in part as follows:

¶30

i) Anticipatory bail application of the first accused viz. the first petitioner, is refused.

¶31

ii). The petitioners 2 and 3 who are accused 2 and 3 are granted bail subject to the following conditions:

¶32

(a). They shall appear before the investigating officer within ten days from today and shall undergo interrogation.

¶33

BA No.7918/2015 3

¶34

Thereafter if they are proposed to be arrested, they shall be released on bail, on they executing bonds for a sum of Rs. 40,000/- each (Rupees forty thousand) with two sureties each.

¶35

(b). They shall appear before the investigating officer on all Mondays and Thursdays between 10 a.m. to 11 a.m. for a period of two months from the date of executing bond as above.

¶36

(c). They shall appear before the investigating officer as and when called for and shall co-operate with the investigation.

¶37

(iii). He shall not threaten, coerce or intimidate the witnesses.

¶38

Sd/-

¶39

SUNIL THOMAS Judge

¶40

dpk

¶41

/true copy/ PS to Judge.

¶42

BA No.7918/2015 4

Mani T a v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mani T a 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

Basurag T. Vs State of Kerala

K.Saiju Vs State of Kerala

K.J.Sanal Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Roshivi V.S. Vs State of Kerala

Kattukujan Vs State of Kerala

Suresh, C.NO.3211, Central Prison, Kannur Vs State of Kerala