Disposed

Sujithmon P.S. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC12 Apr 2018Bail Appl./2481/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala disposed of a bail application by directing the petitioners to appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation. The court held that immediate bail consideration was premature pending police investigation, identification, and recovery.

What did the court decide?

Directed petitioners to undergo police interrogation within 10 days before the jurisdictional Magistrate can consider bail.

Sujithmon P.S. Vs State of Kerala — Cheating and Forgery | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF APRIL 2018 / 22ND CHAITHRA, 1940

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 2481 of 2018

¶6

CRIME NO. 86/2018 OF CHITTAR POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NOS.1 AND 2

¶8

1 SUJITHMON P.S.,

¶9

AGED 33 YEARS, S/O.SURENDRAN P.S., PUTHENPURAYIL HOUSE,

¶10

ANGAMOOZHY, PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶11

2 SANTHOSH T.R.,

¶12

AGED 43 YEARS, S/O.RAGHAVAN, THIRUVALLALUMKAL,

¶13

ANGAMOOZHY, PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶14

BY ADV.SRI.M.T.SURESHKUMAR

¶15

RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT

¶16

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

¶17

BY SR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.N.PRABHAKARAN

¶18

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12-04-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

¶20

SUNIL THOMAS, J.

¶21

B. A. No. 2481 of 2018

¶22

Dated this the 12^th day of April, 2018

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

The petitioners stand arrayed as the accused Nos. 1 and 2 in Crime No.86/2018 of Chittar Police Station, Pathanamthitta District for offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 323, 326, 425 and Section 506(ii) read with 34 of IPC. It was alleged by the prosecution that, on 31.01.2018 at 4.00 p.m., while the de facto complainant, who was the Manager of a school, was sitting inside a car, two persons attacked him using iron rod and stone. He sustained serious injuries on the body and was immediately taken to the hospital. One person has allegedly seen the incident. Apprehending arrest, petitioners have sought for pre-arrest bail.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that, even according to the prosecution the de facto complainant had enemies, who were employed in the school, against whom he had initiated disciplinary action. Due to this animosity, the petitioners were allegedly engaged to cause bodily injuries on him. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the above persons who maintained animosity, have not been arrayed as accused. It was further contended that there is absolutely no

¶26

B. A. No. 2481 of 2018

¶27

¶28

material to connect the petitioners with the incident nor with other persons who allegedly engaged them. Learned counsel for the petitioners also contended that even though the incident happened on 31.01.2018, the FI statement was recorded only on 03.02.2018. Hence, there is an unexplained delay. They are sought to be roped in due to extraneous reasons or due to a mistaken identity, it was argued.

¶29

The learned Public Prosecutor made available the case diary. I have perused the case diary. It appears that, one witness had seen the assailants. According to him, both the persons had masked their face. Still he stated that he was sure that it was the petitioners herein who were travelling in the motor cycle immediately following the incident. They were allegedly seen in the vicinity carrying an iron rod.

¶30

Essentially, the question relates to the oral statement

¶31

of the de facto complainant, the witnesses and also the identification of the accused. Having considered this, I feel that the petitioner herein can be directed to appear before the Investigating Officer to undergo interrogation.

¶32

Hence the bail application is disposed of as follows:

¶33

B. A. No. 2481 of 2018

¶34

¶35

The petitioners herein shall appear before Investigating Officer within 10 days from today and shall undergo interrogation. After interrogation, identification and recovery, if necessary, they shall be produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate on the same day itself who shall consider the bail application, if any, on the same day itself, on the basis of the Police report.

¶36

Sd/-

¶37

SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE.

¶38

/true copy/

¶39

P. A. to Judge

¶40

Sujithmon P.S. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sujithmon P.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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sagar Vs the State of Kerala

Nasarudheen.P Vs the State of Kerala

Abdul Rasak Vs State of Kerala

Pradeepkumar Vs State of Kerala

Akhil Asok Vs State of Kerala

Asif Vs State of Kerala