Allowed

Vadavathi Raghavan v. Sub Inspector of Police

Kerala HC12 Jan 2016Bail Appl./8398/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed the bail application filed by eight accused persons facing charges of robbery, criminal breach of peace, and forgery. The court granted bail subject to executi

What did the court decide?

Bail granted to the petitioners subject to executing a bond of Rs. 45,000 with sureties, appearing before the Investigating Officer weekly, and adhering to specific restrictions regarding movement and

Vadavathi Raghavan Vs Sub Inspector of Police — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016/22ND POUSHA, 1937

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 8398 of 2015

¶6

CRIME NO. 2015/2015 OF KUTHUPARAMBA POLICE STATION, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED 1-8:

¶8

1. VADAVATHI RAGHAVAN, S/O.GOPALAN,

¶9

AGED 54 YEARS, SOBHANAM, MANGATIDAM P.O.,

¶10

MANGATIDAM AMSOM, AMBILAD DESOM.

¶11

2. KAIPPACHERY RAMESH BABU,

¶12

S/O.RAGHAVAN, AGED 49 YEARS, R NIVAS,

¶13

P.O.SANKARANELLUR, MANGATIDAM AMSOM,

¶14

SANKARANELLUR DESOM.

¶15

3. AJEESHKUMAR T., S/O.NARAYANAN, AGED 32 YEARS, KIZHAKKEPARAMBATH HOUSE,

¶16

P.O.SANKARANELLUR, -DO-

¶17

4. BIJU K.K., S/O.KRISHNAN, AGED 32 YEARS,

¶18

THATTUMKANDY HOUSE, -DO-

¶19

5. JIJEESH C., S/O.KRISHNAN, AGED 27 YEARS, KADANKOTT HOUSE, -DO-

¶20

6. BABU P., S/O.BALAN, AGED 39 YEARS, SANKEERTHANAM,

¶21

P.O.MANGATIDAM AMSOM, MANGATIDAM .

¶22

7. BAIJU M., S/O.RAGHAVAN, AGED 32 YEARS, PULLIYULLATHIL HOUSE,

¶23

MANGATIDAM.P.O. MANGATIDAM AMSOM.

¶24

8. PUTHUKADU VINODAN, S/O.CHANDRAN,

¶25

AGED 43 YEARS, KULAMULLAKANDI PARAMBA,

¶26

P.O.SANKARANELLUR, MANGATIDAM AMSOM,

¶27

SANKARANELLUR DESOM.

¶28

BY ADV. SRI.CIBI THOMAS

¶29

--2--

¶30

--2--

¶31

Bail Appl..No. 8398 of 2015

¶32

RESPONDENT(S)COMPLAINANT/STATE:

¶33

1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KUTHUPARAMBA POLICE STATION, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN-670 643.

¶34

2. STATE OF KERALA,

¶35

REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

¶36

HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.

¶37

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.S.SREEJITH

¶38

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12-01-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶39

mbr/

¶40

SUNIL THOMAS, J.

¶41

B.A.No. 8398 of 2015

¶42

Dated this the 12^th day of January, 2016

¶43

ORDER

¶44

The petitioners are accused nos.1 to 8 in Crime No.2015/2015 of Kuthuraramba Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 143, 147, 148, 427, 457, 461 and 392 read with 149 of IPC.

¶45

The allegation of the prosecution is that on 04.11.2015 at 00.35 hrs, the petitioners along with several other persons trespassed into the house of the de facto complainant, armed with weapons and took away six sovereigns of gold ornaments. After initial formalities, crime was registered and the petitioners were arrested on

¶46

30.11.2015. They are in custody and seek bail.

¶47

Heard both sides and examined the records.

¶48

The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that

¶49

the remaining accused have not been arrested. It was further submitted that the accused 1 and 2 are involved in one another case involving Section 308 IPC whereas accused nos.7 and 8 are involved in two other case

¶50

B.A.No. 8398 of 2015

¶51

¶52

invoking Section 308 IPC. It was further alleged that they

¶53

have caused loss to the sum of Rs.25,000/-.

¶54

However, the investigation has substantially progressed. Even though a political rivalry is stated to be the motive, there is nothing on record to indicate that their release will cause a further inflation of political dispute.

¶55

Having considered these facts, I feel that bail can now be granted to the petitioners subject to the following strict conditions:

¶56

(a) The petitioners shall execute a bond for a sum of `45,000/- (Rupees forty five thousand only) with two sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court.

¶57

(b) They shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Mondays and Fridays between 09.00 a.m and 10.00 a.m. for a period of two months from the date of their release.

¶58

(c ) During the above period, they shall not

¶59

B.A.No. 8398 of 2015 3

¶60

enter the limits of Kuthuparamba Police

¶61

Station.

¶62

(d) The petitioners shall not get involved in any other identical offence, and the involvement if any, will be a ground for seeking cancellation of bail.

¶63

(e) They shall not threaten, coerce or intimidate the witnesses and shall also not interfere with the course of investigation.

¶64

The bail application is allowed.

¶65

Sd/- SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE

¶66

//TRUE COPY//

¶67

P.A. TO JUDGE

¶68

Vadavathi Raghavan v. Sub Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vadavathi Raghavan v. Sub Inspector of Police

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

Moideen Irshad a Vs the Station House Office, Kumbla Police Station, Kasaragod 673 121

Haris Vs State of Kerala

Sindhu Vs State of Kerala

Jasin Vs State of Kerala

Latheef Vs State of Kerala

Hamzakutty Vs State of Kerala