Allowed

Sambhu v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC23 May 2018Bail Appl./2369/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment grants anticipatory bail to the first accused, Sambhu, in a criminal case alleging trespass, causing hurt, and outraging modesty. The court finds that the petitioner did not carry a weapon and that custodial interrogation is unnecessary for effective investigation.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail on executing a bond of Rs.25,000 with two sureties for the like amount.

Sambhu 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 R. NARAYANA PISHARADI

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF MAY 2018 / 2ND JYAISHTA, 1940

¶5

Bail Appl.No. 2369 of 2018

¶6

CRIME NO. 251/2018 OF PARAVOOR POLICE STATION , KOLLAM

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/1ST ACCUSED:

¶8

SAMBHU

¶9

S/O.SURENDRAN PILLAI, VADAKKUMBHASATHI VILA, PARAVOOR.

¶10

BY ADV.SRI.M.R.SASITH

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

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

¶13

2. THE SUB INSPECTOR, PARAVOOR POLICE STATION, KOLLAM-690001.

¶14

3. RAJEELA, AGED 38 YEARS, W/O.ABDULLA SAKKARIYA, AL FINA MANZIL, KOTTAPPURAM CHERRY, KOLLAM-690001.

¶15

BY ADV.SMT. K.K.SHEEBA, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶16

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23-05-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

¶18

R.NARAYANA PISHARADI, J. =======================

¶19

B.A.No.2369 of 2018

¶20

======================= Dated this the 23^rd day of May, 2018

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

This is an application for anticipatory bail filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶23

The petitioner is the first accused in the case registered as Crime No.251 of 2018 of the Paravoor Police Station under Sections 458, 452, 427, 323, 324 and 354 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶24

The prosecution case is that on 12.03.2018, during night at about 23.00 hours, the accused together criminally trespassed into the house of the de facto complainant and that they broke the window glass of the house and beat the de facto complainant and her husband with a deadly weapon and caused hurt to them. It is alleged that the first accused caught hold of the chest of the de facto complainant and that the accused together caused damaged to the articles in the house and caused a loss of

¶25

B.A.No.2369 of 2018

¶26

¶27

Rs.10,000/- to the de facto complainant.

¶28

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the case diary and also the report filed by the Investigating Officer.

¶29

The report of the Investigating Officer shows that the accused 2 to 4 in the case have already been arrested. The overt act alleged against the petitioner, who is the first accused in the case, is that he caught hold of the chest of the de facto complainant and thereby outraged her modesty. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner appears to be not necessary to have an effective investigation in the case. The report of the Investigating Officer shows that no recovery has been effected in the case. But even according to the prosecution case, the petitioner was not carrying any weapon while he entered into the house of the de facto complainant. Considering these aspects, I find that the discretion of the Court can be exercised in favour of the petitioner to grant him pre-

B.A.No.2369 of 2018

arrest bail.

In the result, the petition is allowed and it is ordered as follows:-

¶34

The petitioner shall be released on bail on executing a bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with two sureties each for the like amount in the event of his arrest by the police in Crime No.251 of 2018 of the Paravoor Police Station.

¶35

The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer between 9.00 a.m and 11.00 a.m on all Saturdays for a period of three months from the date of his release on bail.

¶36

The petitioner shall not in any manner intimidate or influence the de facto complainant or other prosecution witnesses in the case.

¶37

The petitioner shall not leave the State of Kerala without the prior permission of the jurisdictional Court concerned.

¶38

B.A.No.2369 of 2018

¶39

¶40

The petitioner shall appear before the

¶41

Investigating Officer as and when directed by him in writing to do so.

¶42

If the petitioner violates any of the

¶43

conditions of bail, it is open to the Court having jurisdiction over the case to cancel his bail without any further orders from this Court, but in accordance with law.

¶44

SD/-

¶45

R.NARAYANA PISHARADI, JUDGE

¶46

rp/23.05

¶47

//TRUE COPY//

¶48

P.A TO JUDGE.

Sambhu v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sambhu 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

Krishnakumar @ Kichu Vs State of Kerala

Geo Thomas Vs State of Kerala

Baby Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Pallivila Salim Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Rahim Vs State of Kerala

Rajesh Vs State of Kerala