Allowed

Roy Nath v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC24 Jul 2017Bail Appl./4304/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a bail application by three accused persons charged with offences under the Indian Penal Code involving assault. The High Court granted pre-arrest bail subject to conditions including execution of a bond, appearance for interrogation, and prohibition of tampering with evidence.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted subject to conditions; release on bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties each.

Roy Nath Vs State of Kerala — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V.

¶4

MONDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF JULY 2017/2ND SRAVANA, 1939

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 4304 of 2017 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 832/2017 OF KOIPURAM POLICE STATION , PATHANAMTITTA

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 TO 3:

¶8

1. ROY NATH, AGED 35 YEARS,VALYAPARAMBIL,PURAMATTAM, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶9

2. SUJITH,

¶10

AGED 36 YEARS,POTTANMALA LAKSHAMVEEDU, PURMATTAM,PATHANAMTHITTA DIST.

¶11

3. VINAYAN,

¶12

AGED 35 YEARS,POTTANMALA LAKSHAMVEEDU, PURAMATTAM,PATHANAMTHITTA DIST.

¶13

BY ADVS.SRI.T.P.PRADEEP SRI.P.K.SATHEES KUMAR

¶14

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS:

¶15

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA.

¶16

2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOIPURAM-689531.

¶17

R BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. M.N.MAYA

¶18

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24-07-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

sab

¶20

SHIRCY.V, J.

¶21

Bail Application No.4304 of 2017

¶22

Dated this the 24^th day of July, 2017

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

The petitioners are accused Nos. 1 to 3 in Crime

¶25

No.832/2017 of Koipuram Police Station, Kasaragod registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 294(b), 323, 324, 326 and 34 of IPC

¶26

The prosecution allegation is as follows:

¶27

On 23.5.2017 at about 9.15 hours while the defacto

¶28

complainant was riding his autorickshaw, was intercepted by the accused and beaten him with a wooden stick causing fracture to his leg and other injuries and thereby the petitioners have committed the aforesaid offences.

¶29

The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that they have not committed any offence as alleged but they have been falsely implicated in the case. Actually, the wife of the cousin of the 2^nd petitioner and this defacto complainant eloped together and there was some dispute between these petitioners with regard to his relationship with that lady. But they have nothing to do with the alleged crime. Still they

¶30

Bail Application No.4304 of 2017

¶31

¶32

apprehend arrest and torture by the police, hence this petition for pre-arrest bail.

¶33

The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted the

¶34

CD file for perusal.

¶35

On a perusal of the records, it is seen that the wound certificate of the defacto complainant has not been produced by the prosecution and the same is not available in the case diary, though there was a direction to produce the wound certificate. The submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the defacto complainant has sustained only minor injuries. It appears to be prima facie true, on non-production of the wound certificate. In fact the investigation of the case is well in progress. No criminal antecedents have been reported against any of these accused persons.

¶36

Considering the nature of the accusations leveled against these petitioners and the present stage of investigation and the other facts involved, I think that prearrest bail can be granted subject to the following conditions:

¶37

1). The petitioners shall be released on bail after interrogation on executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- by them

¶38

Bail Application No.4304 of 2017 3

¶39

(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum in the event of their arrest by the police in connection with this case.

¶40

1. They shall appear before the Investigating Officer for

¶41

interrogation as and when required by him, in writing.

¶42

They shall not intimidate or attempt to influence the witnesses, nor shall he tamper with the evidence.

¶43

1. They shall not commit any offence while they are on

¶44

bail.

¶45

1. In case of violation of any of the above conditions,

¶46

the learned Magistrate is empowered to cancel the bail in accordance with law.

¶47

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

¶48

Sd/-

¶49

SHIRCY.V, sab JUDGE

¶50

JUDGE

Roy Nath v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Roy Nath 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

Madhu K.K Vs State of Kerala

Vasanthy Amma Vs State of Kerala

Mohammed Suhair Vs State of Kerala

K.v.Vijyadas Vs State of Kerala

Faisal Salim Vs State of Kerala

Joseph Pathrose Vs State of Kerala