Allowed

Nikhil v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC3 Oct 2018Bail Appl./3185/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed an anticipatory bail application filed by six accused persons charged underSections 143/147/148/323/308 r/w 149 IPC for affray and assault. The court found the complainant was inebriated and noted no serious injuries, holding custody unnecessary for investigation.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; applicants granted anticipatory bail on bond of Rs.40,000 each with two sureties, subject to conditions restricting inducement and requiring cooperation with investigation.

Nikhil 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 RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

WEDNESDAY,THE 03RD DAY OF OCTOBER 2018 / 11TH ASWINA, 1940

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 3185 of 2018

¶6

CRIME NO.234/2018 OF CHALISSERY POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD

¶7

PETITIONERs/ACCUSED:

¶8

1 NIKHIL, AGED 23, S/O. SASINDRAN, PUTHAN PARAMBIL HOUSE, (POST) KOTHACHIRA, PALAKKAD, PIN-679 533.

¶9

2 SIBIL, S/O. LATE SIDHARTHAN,AGED 26, KURUPPATHETHIL HOUSE, (POST)KOTHACHIRA, PALAKKAD, PIN-679 533.

¶10

3 RATHEESH, S/O. MUTHERI, AGED 33, KALYANIKUNNU COLONY HOUSE, (POST)KOTHACHIRA, PALAKKAD, PIN-679 533.

¶11

4 SASI,

¶12

S/O. SANKARAN, AGED 33, VARIATHUPARAMBIL, (POST) KOTHACHIRA, PALAKKAD, PIN-679 533.

¶13

5 BINUMON, S/O. RAMAN, AGED 30, NARIKKUZHIYIL HOUSE, CHAZHIYATTIRI P.O, AKILANAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT,PIN- 679 533.

¶14

6 SANAL, S/O. VIJAYAN, AGED 21, MATTATHIL HOUSE, (POST) KOTHACHIRA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-679 533.

¶15

BY ADV. SRI.P.K.MOHANAN(PALAKKAD)

¶16

Bail Appl..No. 3185 of 2018

¶17

¶18

RESPONDENT/S:

¶19

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.

¶20

SRI. C. N. PRABHAKARAN SR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶21

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.10.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

ORDER

¶23

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

¶24

The applicants herein are the accused Nos.1 to 6 in

¶25

Crime No.234 of 2018 registered at the Chalissery Police Station, under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 308 r/w. Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶26

On 30.3.2018 at 10 pm, the applicants herein are

¶27

alleged to have formed an unlawful assembly with the requisite knowledge and in prosecution of their common object, wrongfully restrained the de facto complainant and the 1^st accused is alleged to have attacked him with an iron rod causing injuries. The 2^nd accused is alleged to have kicked him on his abdomen and the rest of the accused are alleged to have clouted him on various parts of his body.

¶28

¶29

Bail Appl..No. 3185 of 2018

¶30

The learned counsel appearing for the applicants submits that the allegations are not true. According to the learned counsel, the de facto complainant had come to the Kothachira Appath Valapp temple compound in an inebriated state and had created problems. He had fallen down and had suffered minor injuries.

¶31

The learned Public Prosecutor has made available the case diary.

¶32

I have considered the submissions advanced and have gone through the materials on record. It appears from the wound certificate of the de facto complainant, which is dated 30.3.2018, that he was in a highly inebriated state. No serious injuries are noted by the doctor as well. The prosecution does not have a case that the applicants herein are persons with criminal antecedents. In that view of the matter, I am of the considered view that the custodial interrogation of the applicants is not necessary for an effective investigation in the instant case.

¶33

In the result, this application will stand allowed. The 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

¶34

Bail Appl..No. 3185 of 2018

¶35

¶36

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. The above order shall be subject to the following conditions:

¶37

i) The applicants shall co-operate with the investigation and shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Saturdays between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m., for two months or till final report is filed, whichever is earlier.

¶38

ii) They shall not directly or indirectly make any 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.

¶39

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

¶40

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.

¶41

Sd/-

¶42

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., JUDGE

¶43

IAP

¶44

//True Copy// P.A.To Judge

Nikhil v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nikhil 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

Jani Vs State of Kerala

Sunil Kumar K.P. Vs State of Kerala

Rajeevan Vs State of Kerala

Fousia Vs the State of Kerala

Noble Vs State of Kerala

Noble Vs State of Kerala