Partly allowed

Senthil v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC9 Nov 2018Bail Appl./1372/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala disposed of an anticipatory bail application by five petitioners accused of assault in an unlawful assembly. Bail was dismissed for petitioners 1 and 3 due to significant roles but granted for petitioners 2, 4, and 5 subject to conditions.

What did the court decide?

Bail dismissed for petitioners 1 and 3; anticipatory bail granted to petitioners 2, 4, and 5 on specific conditions including bond of ₹40,000 with sureties and appearance before IO.

Senthil Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

¶4

FRIDAY ,THE 09TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 18TH KARTHIKA, 1940

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 1372 of 2018

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMC 2070/2017 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT - VII, ERNAKULAM DATED 23-10-2017

¶7

CRIME NO. 1982/2017 OF KALADY POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM

¶8

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶9

1 SENTHIL, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O. KANNAN, CHETTUPARAMBIL HOUSE, MALAYATTOOR P.O, MALAYATTOOR VILLAGE.

¶10

2 EBIN PRAKASH, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O. PRAKASH, KOLAKKATTUSSERY HOUSE, MALAYATTOOR P.O, MALAYATTOOR VILLAGE.

¶11

3 ANOOP VARGHESE, AGED 24 YEARS, S/O. VARGHESE, KAKKATTUKUDY HOUSE, MALAYATTOOR P.O, MALAYATTOOR VILLAGE.

¶12

4 AFSAL SHAJI, AGED 26 YEARS, S/O. SHAJI, MUTHIRAPARAMBIL HOUSE, MALAYATTOOR P.O, MALAYATTOOR VILLAGE.

¶13

5 MANOJ, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O. SASI, KANAMPURAM HOUSE, MALAYATTOOR P.O, MALAYATTOOR VILLAGE.

¶14

BY ADVS. SRI.K.S.ARUN KUMAR SMT.RESMI THOMAS SRI.JUSTINE JACOB SRI.P.S.SAJEESH

¶15

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶16

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

¶17

OTHER PRESENT:

¶18

PP AJITH MURALI

¶19

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.11.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

Bail Appl..No. 1372 of 2018

¶21

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

Petitioners are accused in Crime No.1982/2017 of Kalady Police Station, Ernakulam District for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 323, 326 and 294(b) of IPC. Prosecution alleged that due to political enmity, petitioners formed into an unlawful assembly and in furtherance of their common object, trespassed into the compound of the de facto complainant and hit the de facto complainant. The 1^st accused hit with an iron rod on the left wrist which resulted in a fracture. 2^nd accused used a chopper and hit

¶24

the de facto complainant, which caused an injury on the arm. The remaining accused facilitated the commission of offence and abused the de facto complainant. On the basis of the FIS laid, crime was registered and the petitioners apprehending arrest seek bail.

¶25

2. It seems that the main allegations are

¶26

Bail Appl..No. 1372 of 2018

¶27

¶28

attributed to petitioners 1 and 3. Having considered these, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to petitioners 1 and 3. Hence, the bail application of petitioners 1 and 3 who are accused Nos. 1 and 2 is dismissed. The role attributed to the remaining accused who are petitioners 2, 4 and 5 is less. Hence I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to petitioners 2, 4 and 5 on the following conditions:

¶29

(i) Petitioners 2, 4 and 5 shall appear before the Investigating Officer within 10 days 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 40,000/-₹ (Rupees forty thousand only) with two sureties for the like sum each.

¶30

(ii) They shall not threaten, coerce or intimidate the defacto complainant or the

¶31

Bail Appl..No. 1372 of 2018

¶32

¶33

witnesses.

¶34

(iii) They shall appear before the Investigating officer on all Wednesdays between 9.00 a.m. and 10.00 a.m. for a period of two months from the date of execution of the bond.

¶35

(iv) They shall not get involved in any other identical offence and the involvement if any, will be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶36

Sd/-

¶37

SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE

¶38

Pn 09/11

Senthil v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Senthil 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sabu Vs State of Kerala

Rahul P.G @ Batty Vs State of Kerala

Dr.Susan Mathew Vs State of Kerala

Jose Thomas Vs State of Kerala

Baiju C.D Vs State of Kerala

T.S.Swaminathan Vs State of Kerala