Partly allowed

Sandeep @ Ullas v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC1 Nov 2017Bail Appl./6580/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed pre-arrest bail to accused Nos. 3 to 7 in an assault case, citing lack of specific allegations against them. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 were directed to surrender to the Investigating Officer for interrogation before considering regular bail. Bail conditions included reporting to the IO.

What did the court decide?

Pre-arrest bail allowed for petitioners 3 to 7; petitioners 1 and 2 directed to surrender for interrogation.

Sandeep @ Ullas Vs State of Kerala — Cheating and Forgery | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017/10TH KARTHIKA, 1939

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 6580 of 2017 ()

¶6

CRIME NO.699/2017 OF PAZHAYANNUR POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 7:

¶8

1. SANDEEP @ ULLAS, S/O.SANKARANARAYANAN, AGED 26 YEARS, RAGINIYIL HOUSE, MAYANNUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT-679105.

¶9

2. KISHORE, S/O.UNNIKRISHNAN, AGED 24 YEARS, KUNNATH HOUSE, MAYANNUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT-679105.

¶10

3. BALAN,

¶11

S/O.CHAMY, AGED 54 YEARS, KUNNATH HOUSE, MAYANNUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT-679105.

¶12

4. UNNIKRISHNAN, S/O.RAJAN, AGED 45 YEARS, KUNNATH HOUSE, MAYANNUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT-679105.

¶13

5. INDU, W/O.UNNIKRISHNAN, AGED 40 YEARS, KUNNATH HOUSE, MAYANNUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT-679105.

¶14

6. LAKSHMANAN, S/O.KUMARAN, AGED 45 YEARS, PLACHIKKAYIL HOUSE, MAYANNUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT-679105.

¶15

7. VASANTHY, W/O.SANKARANARAYANAN, AGED 50 YEARS, RAGINIYIL HOUSE, MAYANNUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT-679105.

¶16

BY ADVS.SRI.C.A.CHACKO SMT.C.M.CHARISMA SMT.MEGHA K.XAVIER

¶17

--2--

¶18

--2--

¶19

Bail Appl..No. 6580 of 2017 ()

¶20

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶21

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTING SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PAZHAYANNUR POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶22

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.SAJJU.S

¶23

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01-11-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

mbr/

¶25

P.UBAID, J.

¶26

- - - - B.A.No. 6580 of 2017

¶27

- - - - Dated this the 01^st day of November, 2017

¶28

O R D E R

¶29

The petitioners herein seek pre-arrest bail under

¶30

Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the

¶31

apprehension of arrest in connection with Crime No. 699 of 2017 of the Pazhayannur Police Station, registered under Sections 341, 323, 506 and 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. They are the seven accused in the above crime.

¶32

The prosecution case is that at about 9.00 p.m. on 03.09.2017, a gang of persons assaulted the defacto complainant and his brother Madhu, and inflicted simple and grievous injuries on their body with weapons like iron rod, in connection with another dispute between them.

¶33

The wound certificate in the name of the defacto complainant shows that he had sustained bilateral fracture of nasal bone, and there was also oedema plus and

¶34

B.A.No. 6580 of 2017

¶35

-2-

¶36

tenderness over the nasal bone. The case of the petitioners' is that some persons on the other side had also sustained some injuries in the alleged incident. They have produced a copy of the wound certificate in the name of one Indu, who is the defacto complainant in the counter case registered as Crime No. 706 of 2017. This certificate shows that she had sustained only a very simple injury in the alleged incident. Anyway, on a reading of the First Information Statement given by the defacto complainant, I find that the injuries were in fact inflicted by the accused Nos. 1 and 2. He sustained fracture of nasal bone when beaten by the first accused with an iron rod, and his brother was beaten by the second accused. The complaint does not contain any specific allegation against the other accused, or there is nothing to show that the accused Nos. 3 to 7 had committed any overt act in the alleged incident. In such a situation, I feel it appropriate to grant pre-arrest bail to the accused Nos. 3 to 7. But the position of accused Nos. 1 and 2 is

¶37

B.A.No. 6580 of 2017

¶38

-3-

¶39

different. They are the persons who committed the acts of assault, and inflicted serious injuries on the body of the complainant. Their interrogation is necessary for the collection of materials concerning the actual motive for the alleged incident, the role and complicity of each of the accused, the nature and the number of the weapons used, the facts and circumstances of the counter case registered by the Police, etc.. After such interrogation, their request for regular bail can be considered by the court below having jurisdiction.

¶40

In the result, this application for bail is disposed of as follows:

¶41

The request for pre-arrest bail made by the petitioners 3 to 7 will stand allowed.

¶42

The petitioners 3 to 7 are ordered to be released on bail on their executing bond with two solvent sureties for ₹30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only) each to the satisfaction of the arresting officer or the learned Magistrate

¶43

B.A.No. 6580 of 2017

¶44

-4-

¶45

having jurisdiction, in case of their arrest in connection with Crime No. 699 of 2017 of the Pazhayannur Police Station.

¶46

Bail is granted on condition that:

¶47

The petitioners shall report before the Investigating Officer as and when required by him.

¶48

The bail application of the petitioners 1 and 2 is disposed of as follows:

¶49

a) The petitioners 1 and 2 will surrender

¶50

before the investigating officer between 9.00 a.m. and 10.00 a.m. on any day within ten days from this date for the purpose of interrogation as part of investigation.

¶51

b) After necessary interrogation, the investigating officer will produce the petitioners

¶52

before the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction by 4 pm. on the date of arrest itself.

¶53

B.A.No. 6580 of 2017

¶54

-5-

¶55

c) In case application for regular bail is

¶56

filed by the petitioners, the same shall be judiciously considered and decided by the learned Magistrate on the same day on merits.

Sd/- P.UBAID

JUDGE

ds 01.11.2017

//True copy//

P.A. to Judge

Sandeep @ Ullas v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandeep @ Ullas 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

Renjith Vs State of Kerala

V.a.Thomas Vs State of Kerala

Sujatha Vs State of Kerala

Subash Vs State of Kerala

Nasar Vs State of Kerala

Abdu Vs the State of Kerala