Allowed

Rajan v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC22 Jan 2016Bail Appl./8397/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court allowed a pre-arrest bail application filed by five accused persons charged with robbery. The court found that the petitioners had made out a prima facie case and that custodial interrogation was not necessary. Bail was granted subject to several conditions including execution of a bond, appearances for interrogation, and refraining from tampering with evidence or leaving Ind

What did the court decide?

Petitioners released on bail after interrogation, executing bond for 25,000 each with two sureties for the like sum, subject to seven conditions including non-interference with witnesses and no leavin

Rajan Vs the 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 RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY 2016/2ND MAGHA, 1937

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 8397 of 2015 ()

¶6

------------------------------CRIME NO. 1755/2015 OF TOWN SOUTH POLICE STATION,PALAKKAD DISTRICT

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED :

¶8

1. RAJAN, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O.CHEMATTI, RESIDING AT KALLINGAL HOUSE, KALLINGAL, KADAMKODE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶9

2. MURALI, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.CHEMATTI, RESIDING AT KALLINGAL HOUSE, KALLINGAL, KADAMKODE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶10

3. RAJESH, AGED 27 YEARS, S/O.RAJAN, RESIDING AT KALLINGAL HOUSE, KALLINGAL, KADAMKODE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶11

4. RANJITH, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O.RAJAN, RESIDING AT KALLINGAL HOUSE, KALLINGAL, KADAMKODE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶12

5. RAHUL, AGED 22 YEARS,S/O.RAJAN, RESIDING AT KALLINGAL HOUSE, KALLINGAL, KADAMKODE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶13

BY ADVS.SRI.T.MADHU

¶14

SMT.RADHIKA P.GOPINATH

¶15

RESPONDENT/STATE :

¶16

THE STATE OF KERALA THROUGH THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, TOWN SOUTH POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.

¶17

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. SEENA RAMAKRISHNAN

¶18

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22-01-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

sts

¶20

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., J

¶21

¶22

B.A.8397 of 2015

¶23

- - - - Dated 22^nd January, 2016

¶24

¶25

ORDER

¶26

1.This is an application for pre-arrest bail filed u/s 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶27

2.The petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 5 in crime No.1755 of 2015 of Town South police station, Palakkad. The aforesaid crime has been registered u/s 395 of the IPC.

¶28

3.The prosecution allegation is that on 21.12.2015 at 9.00 am, the petitioners wrongfully restrained the de facto complainant and robbed a sum of Rs.45,000/which was kept by him in his possession.

¶29

4.I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶30

B.A.8397/15

¶31

¶32

5.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that at the instance of the 3^rd petitioner, crime No.1756 of 2015 has been registered by the Town South police station, Palakkad, alleging offence punishable u/s 341, 322, 326 r/w S.34 of the IPC. In the aforesaid crime, the allegation is that on 21.12.2015 at 8.30 pm, the de facto complainant in crime No.1756 of 2015 and one Suresh had wrongfully restrained the 3^rd petitioner and had assaulted him with an iron rod causing grave injuries. It is further submitted that the registration of the instant crime is a counter blast for the registration of the earlier crime.

¶33

6.The learned Public Prosecutor has produced the case diary as directed and I have gone through the same as well.

¶34

B.A.8397/15

¶35

¶36

7.It is clear from the records that the incident in which the 3^rd petitioner was assaulted occured earlier in point of time.

¶37

8.After having considered the nature and gravity of the allegations, the antecedents of the petitioners and the other circumstances, I am of the view that the petitioners have made out a prima facie case. It appears custodial interrogation is not necessary for an effective investigation in the facts and circumstances.

¶38

9.In the result, this application is allowed, but subject to the following conditions:

¶39

i). The petitioners shall be released on bail after interrogation on their executing a bond for 25,000/- each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum ifthey are arrested by the Police in connection with this case.

¶40

B.A.8397/15

¶41

¶42

ii). The petitioners shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/ her from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer.

¶43

iii). The petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation as and when required by the investigating officer.

¶44

iv). The petitioners shall not influence or intimidate the prosecution witnesses or attempt to tamper with the evidence for the prosecution.

¶45

v). The petitioners shall not commit any similar offence while on bail.

¶46

vi). The petitioners shall not leave India without the previous permission of the jurisdictional magistrate.

¶47

vii). In case of violation of any

¶48

B.A.8397/15

¶49

¶50

of the above conditions, the jurisdictional magistrate shall be empowered to cancel the bail in accordance with law.

¶51

Sd/RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V. Judge

¶52

Mrcs/22.1.2016

¶53

//True Copy//

¶54

P.S To Judge

Rajan v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajan v. the 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

Raphi Antony Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

Kanagendran Vs State of Kerala

Korah John Vs State of Kerala

Abdulla M. Vs State of Kerala

Ramachandran K Vs State of Kerala

Muthalib Vs State of Kerala