Allowed

Seon Varghese v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC26 Sept 2018Bail Appl./4561/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala granted anticipatory bail to accused persons in a case involving unlawful assembly and mischief. The court found no evidence in the medical record of serious injuries and no material substantiating mischief, deeming custodial interrogation unnecessary under specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed. Bail granted subject to appearance before IO, cooperation, non-inducement, and not committing offences. Bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties.

Seon Varghese Vs State of Kerala — Public Procurement and Tenders | 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 26TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2018 / 4TH ASWINA, 1940

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 4561 of 2018

¶6

CRIME NO.437/2018 OF IRINJALAKUDA POLICE STATION, THRISSUR

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED 2, 4 & 6:

¶8

1 SEON VARGHESE, AGED 24, S/O. VARGHESE, PAROOKARAN HOUSE, P.O.INJUMUDI, CHIRACKKEL, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶9

2 VISHNU PRASAD, AGED 20, S/O. PRASAD, MEPURATH HOUSE, P.O. PORATHISSERY, IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶10

3 ASMIN MOHAN, AGED 21, S/O. MOHAN, CHAZHUR VEEDU, P.O. KATTOOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶11

BY ADVS.SRI.SAIJO HASSAN

¶12

SMT.P.PARVATHY SRI.BENOJ C AUGUSTIN

¶13

SRI.RAFEEK. V.K. SRI.VISHNU BHUVANENDRAN

¶14

RESPONDENT/STATE:

¶15

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

¶16

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AJITH MURALI

¶17

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26.09.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

B.A.No.4561 of 2018

ORDER

This application is filed under §438 of the Cr.P.C.

¶22

The applicants herein are the accused Nos.2, 4 & 6 in

¶23

Crime No.437 of 2018 registered at the Irinjalakuda Police Station under §§143, 147, 148, 452, 341, 323, 324, 294(b), 506(ii), 308, 427 r/w §149 of the IPC.

¶24

The prosecution allegation is that on 8.6.2018 at 6 pm, the applicants herein along with rest of the accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly with the requisite knowledge and in prosecution of their common object, trespassed into the house of the de facto complainant and attacked her husband. It is also alleged that they committed mischief and caused a loss to the tune of Rs.25,000/-.

¶25

The learned counsel appearing for the applicants asserts that they are innocent of the allegations. According to the learned counsel, though it is alleged that serious injuries were inflicted, same is not corroborated by the medical records.

¶26

B.A.No.4561 of 2018

¶27

¶28

Heard the learned Public Prosecutor and I have gone through the materials on record. The wound certificate does not reveal that any serious injuries were sustained. Though it is alleged that mischief was committed, no materials are produced before this Court to substantiate the said fact.

¶29

Having regard to the facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the custodial interrogation of the applicants is not necessary for an effective investigation. Necessary conditions can be imposed to safeguard the interest of the prosecution.

¶30

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 on their executing a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum. The above order shall be subject to the following conditions:

¶31

(i) The applicants 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.

¶32

B.A.No.4561 of 2018

¶33

¶34

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.

¶35

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

¶36

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.

¶37

SD/-

¶38

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., JUDGE

¶39

//TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE

¶40

IAP

Seon Varghese v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Seon Varghese 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

Manoj Vs State of Kerala

Divya Vs State of Kerala

Prasanth C.K. Vs State of Kerala

Mansoor Vs State of Kerala

Sumayya Rahim Vs the State of Kerala

Subhash Kumar Vs the State of Kerala