Partly allowed

Mohanan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC1 Mar 2016Bail Appl./910/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Kerala disposed of a bail application filed by four accused in a crime involving a knife attack and illegal possession of arms. The court dismissed bail for two accused using weapons but granted pre-arrest bail to the remaining accused with caution bonds.

What did the court decide?

Bail application dismissed for accused Nos. 2 and Vinod and Joshi and allowed for the remaining accused on conditions of executing bond and undergoing interrogation.

Mohanan Vs State of Kerala — 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 1ST DAY OF MARCH 2016/11TH PHALGUNA, 1937

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 910 of 2016

¶6

CRIME NO. 49/2016 OF VILAPPILSALA POLICE STATION , THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED :

¶8

1. MOHANAN, AGED 33 YEARS, S/O.YESUDASAN, RESIDING AT KADUKKUNINNAVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, MALAPPANAMCODE, VILAPPILSALA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶9

2. VINOD, AGED 27 YEARS,

¶10

S/O.SAIMON, RESIDING AT TREASA BHAVAN, MALAPPANAMCOCDE, VILAPPILSALA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶11

3. JOSHI, AGED 28 YEARS, S/O.MOHANAN, RAJ BHAVAN, ELAVOORKONAM, VILAPPILSALA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶12

4. SURESH, AGED 24 YEARS, S/O.MARYADAS, SURESH BHAVAN, VALAKKODE, KATTUKKODE, VILAPPILSALA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶13

BY ADV. SRI.R.V.SREEJITH

¶14

RESPONDENT(S)/STATE :

¶15

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

¶16

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.R.REMA

¶17

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01-03-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

Msd.

¶19

SUNIL THOMAS, J.

¶20

B. A. No. 910 of 2016

¶21

Dated this the 1^st day of March, 2016

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

The petitioners are the accused in Crime No. 49/2016 of Vilappilsala Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 394, 341, 323, 324, 308 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 27 of Arms Act.

¶24

The allegation of the prosecution is that, on 13.01.2016 at 7.50 p.m., the accused formed into an unlawful assembly armed with sword, iron rod and attacked the defacto complainant and others. Alleging that they had intention to commit culpable homicide, crime was registered.

¶25

The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that in fact the petitioners herein were attacked by the defacto complainant and others and that they have sustained injuries, for which another crime has been registered as Crime No.62/2016. It was contended by the learned counsel that the incident in the counter case occurred at 7.00 p.m., whereas the present crime occurred at 7.50 p.m.

¶26

However, it is seen that, the FIS in the present crime was registered anterior to the counter case and the defacto

¶27

B. A. No. 910 of 2016 2

¶28

complainant in the present case was seen by the Doctor on 13.01.2015 at 8.15 p.m. He had sustained four lacerated wounds including one on the scalp and other one on the forehead. The others were on the limbs. On the other hand, the counter case seems to have been laid belatedly on 18.01.2015 and very serious injuries are not seen caused.

¶29

Having regard to the existence of the case and the counter case, it appears that, the existence of the counter case may not support the petitioners herein as such. The 2^nd accused allegedly used a sword and the 3^rd accused used an iron rod. The other accused though members of the unlawful assembly had not used any weapon.

¶30

Having regard to these facts, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners 2 and 3, though the remaining are entitled for bail.

¶31

Hence the bail application is allowed in part as follows:

¶32

(i) The pre-arrest bail application of the accused Nos.2 and 3 is dismissed.

¶33

(ii) The pre-arrest bail application of the remaining accused are allowed on the following conditions:

¶34

(i) The petitioners shall appear before

¶35

the Investigation Officer within 10 days

¶36

B. A. No. 910 of 2016

¶37

¶38

from today and shall undergo interrogation. Thereafter if they are proposed to be arrested, they shall be released on bail, on each of the petitioner executing a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/(Rupees fifty thousand only) with two sureties for the like sum each.

¶39

(ii) They shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Mondays and Fridays between 9.00 am and 10.00 am for a period of two months from the date of execution of the bond as above.

¶40

(iii) He shall not threaten, coerce or intimidate the defacto complainant and the witnesses nor shall he interfere in the process of investigation

¶41

(iv) He shall not get involved in any other identical offences.

¶42

SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE.

¶43

/true copy/

¶44

P. A. to Judge

¶45

Mohanan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohanan 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

Sarath Vs State of Kerala

Jose Vs State of Kerala

Ashraf Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Jasimu V.Y. Vs the State of Kerala

Liby Mathew Vs State of Kerala

Sajeev Vs State of Kerala