Partly allowed

Sajeesh v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC21 Jun 2018Bail Appl./1927/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court granted anticipatory bail on conditions to Accused 2 and 3, ordering them to undergo interrogation. Bail was denied to Accused 1 due to the seriousness of the specific injury allegations against him.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed for Accused 2 and 3 on conditions including interrogation, cooperation, periodic appearance, and bond execution; application dismissed as regards Accused 1.

Sajeesh Vs State of Kerala — Anticipatory Bail | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JUNE 2018 / 31ST JYAISHTA, 1940

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 1927 of 2018

¶6

CRIME NO. 115/2018 OF KUNNAMKULAM POLICE STATION , TRISSUR

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED 1 TO 3

¶8

1 SAJEESH, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O.SATHEESHA, KALLANVALAPPIL HOUSE, ARTHAT VILLAGE, DESOM, KUNNAMKULAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶9

2 RAJESH, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O.RAGHAVAN, VATTAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, KURUKKANAPARA, KUNNAMKULAM VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶10

3 VIBIN, AGED 33 YEARS, S/O.BALAN, EZHUTHUPURAKKAL HOUSE, ARTHAT VILLAGE, DESOM, KUNNAMKULAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶11

BY ADVS.SRI.I.V.PRAMOD SRI.K.V.SASIDHARAN

¶12

RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT/STATE:

¶13

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

¶14

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.N.PRABHAKARAN

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21-06-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

IAP

¶17

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, J.

¶18

B.A. No.1927 of 2018

¶19

Dated this the 21^st day of June, 2018

¶20

ORDER

¶21

1.This application is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶22

2.The applicants herein are the accused Nos.1 to 3 in Crime No.115 of 2018 of the Kunnamkulam Police Station, registered under Sections 341, 323, 324, 326, 294(b) r/w. Section 34 of the IPC.

¶23

3.It is alleged that on 26.1.2018 at 8 p.m, when the de facto complainant questioned the accused for lighting sparkles on the side of the road, he was wrongfully restrained and was attacked. The specific allegation is that the 1^st accused took the key chain of the bike and inflicted injuries on his face causing dislocation and loosening of the teeth.

¶24

4.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicants as well as the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶25

5.I have considered the submissions advanced. It appears from

¶26

the medical records that the victim had sustained a fracture of

¶27

B.A.No.1927 of 2018 2

¶28

the upper second incisor. The said injury was inflicted by the

¶29

1^st accused. Insofar as the applicant Nos.2 and 3 are concerned, the allegations are not grave.

¶30

6.Having regard to the facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the 1^st applicant. However, insofar as the applicant Nos.2 and 3 are concerned, I am of the view that their custodial interrogation is not necessary for an effective investigation.

¶31

7.In the result, this application is partly allowed. This application insofar as it concerns the 1^st applicant will stand dismissed. Insofar as the applicant Nos. 2, 3 are concerned, this application will stand allowed on the following conditions.

¶32

i).The 2^nd and 3^rd applicants shall appear before the investigating officer within ten days from today and shall undergo interrogation. Thereafter, if they are proposed to be arrested, they shall be released on bail on their executing a bond for a sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand only) each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum.

¶33

ii)They shall co-operate with the investigation and shall appear before the Investigating Officer on every Saturdays between 10 A.M and 1 P.M. for a period of two months or till final report is filed whichever is earlier.

¶34

iii)They shall not directly or indirectly make any

¶35

B.A.No.1927 of 2018 3

¶36

inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer.

¶37

iv)They shall not commit any similar offence while on bail.

¶38

In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the jurisdictional Court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation, if any, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law.

¶39

Sd/-

¶40

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., JUDGE

¶41

IAP //True Copy\

¶42

P.A to Judge

Sajeesh v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sajeesh 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

Santhosh Sivanarayanan Vs the State of Kerala

Nimesh @ Appu Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Shibu Vs State of Kerala

K.V. Subhash Vs State of Kerala

Ajay Prasad Vs State of Kerala

Abdusamad Palappetti Vs Station House Officer, Feroke