Allowed

Sudheesh K.S. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC9 Apr 2018Bail Appl./2014/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, the 6th accused in a criminal case under sections relating to assault and injury. The court held that custodial interrogation was not warranted due to identity confusion and absence of weapon usage allegations against him.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted subject to appearing before the Investigating Officer within 10 days, executing a bond with sureties if arrested, and refraining from threatening witnesses.

Sudheesh K.S. 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 SUNIL THOMAS

¶4

MONDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF APRIL 2018 / 19TH CHAITHRA, 1940 Bail Appl..No. 2014 of 2018

¶5

CRIME NO. 1141/2017 OF PERUMBAVOOR POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM

¶6

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NO.7

¶7

SUDHEESH K.S. S/O.SUBRAMANIAN, AGED 22 YEARS KANJIRATHUMKUDI, PUTHUMANA, PANAKUZHI P.O., VENDOOR.

¶8

BY ADV.SRI.LIFFY P. FRANCIS

¶9

RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT:

¶10

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PERUMBAVOOR POLICE STATION, THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN: 682 031.

¶11

BY SR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.K.SURESH

¶12

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09-04-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

¶14

SUNIL THOMAS, J.

¶15

B. A. No. 2014 of 2018

¶16

Dated this the 9^th day of April, 2018

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

The petitioner herein claimed himself as the 7^th accused in Crime No.1141/2017 of Perumbavoor Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 294(b), 307 read with 34 IPC. According to the prosecution, on 09.04.2017 at 1.15 a.m., the accused attacked the de facto complainant and inflicted injuries on him. Crime was registered and the petitioner apprehends arrest.

¶19

According to the petitioner, he was not in the scene of occurrence and he is sought to be implicated on the basis of a mistaken identity. His earlier bail application was dismissed by this Court by order dated 14.06.2017 in B.A. No.3767/2017, primarily on the ground that the accused have used weapons, the 1^st accused is involved in several cases and that the petitioner herein, though claimed to be the 7^th accused, was the 2^nd accused. It was stated that he was involved in two other cases, involving one under Section 308 IPC.

¶20

The petitioner has approached this Court seeking anticipatory bail on a premise that the petitioner is not the 2^nd

¶21

B. A. No. 2014 of 2018

¶22

¶23

accused and his name is identical to that of the 2^nd accused which led to a wrong submission regarding the role played by the petitioner.

¶24

The learned Public Prosecutor fairly submitted that the petitioner is neither the 2^nd accused nor the 7^th accused, but he is arrayed as the 6^th accused. It seems that there are three accused whose names are identical. Probably, this led to the earlier finding. It is also seen that the allegation against the petitioner is that he along with accused Nos.4, 5, 7 and 8 wrongfully restrained the friends of the de facto complainant and assaulted them. There is no allegation that the petitioner herein is involved in any other offence and that the petitioner has used any weapons. The other accused have been apprehended or have surrendered. Hence, I do not feel that a custodial interrogation of the petitioner is warranted. Hence, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶25

Hence, the bail application is allowed on the following conditions:

¶26

(i) Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer within 10 days from today and shall undergo interrogation. Thereafter, if

¶27

B. A. No. 2014 of 2018

¶28

¶29

he is proposed to be arrested, he shall be released on bail on he executing a bond for a sum of 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand₹ only) with two sureties for the like sum each.

¶30

(ii) He shall not threaten, coerce or intimidate the defacto complainant or the witnesses.

¶31

(iii) He shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called for and co-operate with the investigation.

¶32

Sd/-

¶33

SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE.

¶34

/true copy/

¶35

P. A. to Judge

¶36

Sudheesh K.S. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudheesh K.S. 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

Shimil Vs State of Kerala

Sanofer A.J. Vs Sajeena Beevi. N

Rahim Vs State of Kerala

Subeesh.P Vs Victim

R.Baiju Vs State of Kerala

Sudarshanan Vs State of Kerala