Allowed

Nijil v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC8 Sept 2017Bail Appl./6179/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Kerala allowed bail to the third accused, Nijil, in a case alleging offences of intimidation, assault, and outrage of modesty. The bail was granted with conditions including payment of security, appearance before the IO, non-tampering with evidence, and surrender of passport.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted on bond of Rs.50,000 with two sureties each for Rs.50,000, subject to conditions including appearance before IO on Saturdays, non-tampering with evidence, and surrender of passport.

Nijil Vs State of Kerala — Narcotics (NDPS) | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2017/17TH BHADRA, 1939

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 6179 of 2017 ()

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER IN CRMC 1626/2017 of I ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM, DATED 21-08-2017

¶7

AGAINST THE ORDER IN CMP 1575/2017 of J.F.C.M-II, KOCHI, DATED 04-08-2017

¶8

CRIME NO. 1672/2017 OF PALLURUTHY POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM

¶9

PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.3 (IN CUSTODY):

¶10

NIJIL AGED 25, S/O.JASMIN, THEKKEL VEEDU, MARAMBILLY COLONY, PALLURUTHY.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.A.S.SASIDHARAN

¶12

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶13

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.

¶14

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AMJAD ALI

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 0809-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

VPS

¶17

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, J.

¶18

¶19

B.A No.6179 of 2017

¶20

¶21

Dated this the 8^th day of September, 2017

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

1.This application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking bail.

¶24

2.The applicant has been arrayed as the 3^rd accused in Crime No.1672 of 2017 of Palluruthy Police Station. The aforesaid Crime has been registered against the applicant and two others alleging offence punishable under Sections 341, 323, 354, 354-A, 294(b) read with Section 34 of the IPC.

¶25

3.The crux of the prosecution allegation is that on 2.8.2013 at 9.30 p.m, while the de facto complainant and her husband was coming in a bike, the applicant and two other accused who were standing by the side of the road obstructed them. There arose an altercation and pursuant to the same, the 1^st and 2^nd accused are alleged to have assaulted the de facto complainant and her husband. Some overtact is also alleged against the applicant herein. It is the case of the prosecution that the 2^nd accused had touched the body

¶26

B.A Nos.6179/2017

¶27

¶28

of the de facto complainant, who is a lady, with intent to outrage her modesty.

¶29

4.Learned counsel appearing for the applicant would submit that the applicant has no criminal antecedents and that he was arrested on 3.8.2017 and since then he is languishing in custody. According to the learned counsel, he happened to be in the company of accused Nos. 1 and 2, who are hardened criminals which tag, will not apply to him. Continued incarceration is unwarranted, is the submission.

¶30

5.Learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, would submit that for absolutely no reason, the de facto complainant and her husband was wrongfully restrained and was brutally assaulted by the applicant as well as two others. However, it was submitted that accused Nos. 1 and 2 are persons with criminal antecedents and are involved in several offences which involve offences under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act as well. It is also

¶31

B.A Nos.6179/2017

¶32

¶33

submitted that while the accused persons were taken in custody, they had committed mischief inside the police lockup for which a subsequent crime has been registered. However, insofar as the applicant is concerned, no other cases are reported.

¶34

6.I have considered the submissions advanced by both sides and have gone through the materials on record. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 in the aforesaid Crime, appear to be inveterate offenders and they are not before this Court. The fact that the applicant was arrested on 3.8.2017 cannot be lost sight of. No other criminal antecedents are reported against the applicant. The investigation has proceeded much and further detention in custody of the applicant is not called for.

¶35

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

¶36

1). The applicant shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the court having jurisdiction.

¶37

B.A Nos.6179/2017

¶38

¶39

2). The applicant shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Saturdays between 9 a.m. and 10 a.m., for 2 months or till final report is filed, whichever is earlier.

¶40

3). The applicant shall not intimidate or attempt to influence the witnesses; nor shall he tamper with the evidence.

¶41

4). The applicant shall not commit any offence while he is on bail.

¶42

5). The applicant shall surrender his passport before the court below or if he does not have one he shall file an affidavit to that effect within five days of his release.

¶43

In case of violation of any of the above conditions,

¶44

the jurisdictional court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail

¶45

in accordance with the law.

¶46

Sd/-

¶47

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN. V., JUDGE

ps/8/9/17

//True copy//

PS to Judge

B.A Nos.6179/2017 5

Nijil v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nijil 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

P.R.Devadas Vs Sub Divisional Magistrate

Bhaskaran.U Vs State of Kerala

Shobhakumary C.H. Vs Nagaveni K.

Sreekumar.M.N Vs State of Kerala

Bijeesh Vs State of Kerala

Sasikiran Vs the Excise Inspector