Allowed

Santhoshkumar v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC8 Jan 2016Bail Appl./8401/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam granted bail to the petitioner, an accused under Sections 341, 323, 324, 326 read with Section 34 IPC, subject to executing a bond, appearing before the IO on alternate weekdays, avoiding the Sessions Division of Palakkad, and not interfering with witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed with conditions including bond execution, appearance to IO, geo-restriction, and non-interference.

Santhoshkumar Vs 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 SUNIL THOMAS

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016/18TH POUSHA, 1937

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 8401 of 2015 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 1113/2015 OF CHERPULASSERY POLICE STATION.

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1:

¶8

SANTHOSHKUMAR, S/O. KUMARAN, AGED 25 YEARS, MANAMPALLA VEEDU, THEKKUMMURI P.O., KARALMANNA VIA, CHERPULASSERY.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.GEORGEKUTTY MATHEW.

¶10

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶11

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.

¶12

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.T.Y. LALIZA.

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08-01-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

rs.

¶15

SUNIL THOMAS, J.

¶16

B.A.No.8401 of 2015

¶17

Dated this the 8^th day of January, 2016

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The petitioner is the 1^st accused in Crime No.1113/2015 of Cherpulassery Police Station for offences punishable under Section 341, 323, 324, 326 read with Section 34 IPC.

¶20

The allegation of the prosecution is that on 04.12.2015 at about 9.45 hrs, the accused, in furtherance of his common intention, wrongfully restrained the de facto complainant and caused hurt to him by beating, kicking and thereby causing bodily injuries to the de facto complainant. It is stated that the injury has affected the hearing faculty of the de facto complainant. The petitioner was arrested on 08.12.2015 and is in custody since then. He seeks bail.

¶21

Heard both sides. The learned Counsel for the de facto complainant and the learned Public Prosecutor both opposed the application. It was contended by the learned Counsel for the de facto

¶22

B.A.No.8401 of 2015

¶23

¶24

complainant that, the petitioner along with two other persons have obstructed the business run by the petitioner.

¶25

It is further alleged that the petitioner herein

¶26

has violated the orders of injunction granted by the civil court and also instigated other members of the public to proceed against the petitioner. It appears that the main over tact is committed by the petitioner herein.

¶27

Even according to the petitioner, there seems to be some dispute regarding the running of the establishment by the de facto complainant and his employer. Without going to the merits of that case, having considered the fact that, the petitioner is in jail since 08.12.2015 and that the statements of the crucial witness have been recorded, I am inclined to grant bail subject to the following conditions:

¶28

(a) The petitioner shall execute a bond for `50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with

¶29

two solvent sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court.

¶30

B.A.No.8401 of 2015

¶31

¶32

(b) He shall appear before the Investigating

¶33

Officer on all Mondays and Fridays between 10.00 a.m and 11.00 a.m. for a period of three months from the date of execution of bond as above.

¶34

(c ) He shall not enter the Sessions Division of Palakkad for a period of three months during the above period, except for the compliance of the above conditions or for appearance in a court of law, where his appearance is mandatorily required.

¶35

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

¶36

The bail application is allowed.

¶37

Sd/- SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE

¶38

//TRUE COPY//

¶39

P.A TO JUDGE

¶40

Santhoshkumar v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santhoshkumar 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

Sugathan Vs State of Kerala

Rensu Vs State of Kerala

M.S. Faisal Vs State of Kerala

Vineeth a. Vs State of Kerala

Sakeer Hussain Vs State of Kerala

Abhilash Chandran Vs State of Kerala