Allowed

Aniyan.D v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC19 Jan 2017Bail Appl./63/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed a bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for an accused in a case involving obscene acts and assault. Despite serious injuries and a delayed FIR, the court was inclined to grant bail, subject to strict conditions including surrender of passport and periodic appearance.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail on execution of bond with two solvent sureties, required to appear every week, surrender passport, and not leave India or get involved in other criminal cases.

Aniyan.D Vs State of Kerala — Anticipatory Bail | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.ABRAHAM MATHEW

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JANUARY 2017/29TH POUSHA, 1938

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 63 of 2017 ()

¶6

----------------------------CRIME NO. 2343/2016 OF PANDALAM POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

ANIYAN. D., AGED 34 YEARS, S/O. DAVEED, RESIDING AT CHARUVILA VEEDU, VAYALA MURI, ERATHU VILLAGE, VAYALA. P.O, ADOOR TALUK.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.K.SASIKUMAR, SRI.S.ARAVIND, SRI.M.VIJESH KUMAR.

¶10

RESPONDENT:

¶11

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, KOCHI-31.

¶12

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AJITH MURALI.

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19-01-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

rs.

¶15

K.ABRAHAM MATHEW, J.

¶16

B.A.No. 63 of 2017

¶17

Dated this the 19^th day of January, 2017

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶20

Petitioner is the second accused in Crime No.2343 of 2016 of

¶21

Pandalam Police Station registered for the offences under Sections 294 (b) 324 and 326 IPC.

¶22

The prosecution case is that at about 7.30 p.m on 29.10.2016 he along with the co-accused uttered obscene words and assaulted the victim with an iron rod causing him injuries including fracture of bones.

¶23

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶24

The victim sustained fracture of the right humerus and fracture of a bone of right leg. This makes probable the allegation that he was assaulted with an iron rod.

¶25

The incident allegedly happened on 29.10.2016. The victim was immediately admitted to General Hospital, Adoor. It is seen from the wound certificate that he had consumed alcohol. On the third day he was discharged at his request. The First Information Statement was given

¶26

B.A.No. 63 of 2017 2

¶27

only on 9.11.2016. The explanation given by him is that he thought that the hospital authorities would inform the police. The petitioner is a relative of him. Still he did not mention his name in the FI Statement which was given many days after the incident. This is a suspicious circumstance. Having regard to all these facts, I am inclined to grant the prayer of the petitioner. This order is not an impediment for the police to recover the weapons if the facts justify it.

¶28

In the result, this Bail Application is allowed.

¶29

i. The petitioner shall be released on bail after interrogation on his executing a bond for Rs.25,000/(Rupees Twenty five thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum if he is arrested by the police in connection with this case.

¶30

ii) He shall appear before the investigating officer between 3.00p.m and 4.00 p.m every first and third Saturdays for four months, or till the final report is filed, whichever is earlier.

¶31

iii. He shall not intimidate or attempt to influence the witnesses, nor shall he get himself involved in any other criminal case.

¶32

B.A.No. 63 of 2017 3

¶33

iv. He shall surrender his passport before the

¶34

lower court concerned or if he does not have one he shall file an affidavit to that effect within five days of his release.

¶35

v. He shall not leave India without the

¶36

previous permission of the court of enquiry or trial court as the case may be.

¶37

vi) He shall not get himself involved in any

¶38

other criminal case while he is on bail.

¶39

If he surrenders before the Magistrate, this order is not applicable and the learned Magistrate may pass appropriate orders.

¶40

In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the lower court

¶41

concerned is empowered to cancel the bail in accordance with the law.

¶42

K.ABRAHAM MATHEW JUDGE

¶43

Aniyan.D v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aniyan.D 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

Nithin Vs State of Kerala

Juby Jackson K.T Vs State of Kerala

Thressiamma Vs Station House Officer,Athirapilly Police Station.

Mathew Varghese @ Sharon Vs the State of Kerala

Vipin Vs State of Kerala

Mohammed Abdul Noor Vs State of Kerala