Partly allowed

Sooraj @ Kochumon v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC7 Nov 2018Bail Appl./5867/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala disposed of a bail application challenging a criminal case involving assault. The court distinguished the culpability of the accused based on evidence, granting pre-arrest bail to the first and third petitioners while dismissing it for the second petitioner, who was permitted to surrender only for interrogation and weapon recovery.

What did the court decide?

Pre-arrest bail granted to first and third petitioners on bond; bail dismissed for second petitioner, but he permitted to surrender for interrogation and recovery of weapon.

Sooraj @ Kochumon 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 SUNIL THOMAS

¶4

WEDNESDAY,THE 07TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 16TH KARTHIKA, 1940

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 5867 of 2018

¶6

CRIME NO. 1034/2018 OF CHIRAYINKIL POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶7

PETITIONERS/A1 TO A3:

¶8

1 SOORAJ @ KOCHUMON AGED 19, S/O. SUNIL, VALIYAVILAKOM, PANDAKASALA, SARKARA VILLAGE, CHIRAYINKEEHU TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶9

2 PRIJITH,AGED 19 YEARS S/O PRASANNAN,MANIKKANVILAKOM PUTHUKKARI,CHIRAYINKEEZHU,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶10

3 SANJU, AGED 20 YEARS S/O SAJEEV,VAYALIVEEDU, KOOTUMVATHUKKAL,SARKARA VILLAGE,CHIRAYINKEEZHU,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶11

BY ADV. SHAJIN S.HAMEED

¶12

RESPONDENT/STATE:

¶13

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED THROUGH THE SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHIRAYINKIL POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶14

SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.N PRABHAKARAN

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.11.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

Bail Appl..No. 5867 of 2018

¶17

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

The petitioners herein are the accused Nos.1 to 3 in Crime No.1034 of 2018 of Chirayinkil Police Station for offences punishable under sections 143, 147, 148, 294(b), 323 & 326 read with section 149 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶20

2. The crux of the prosecution allegation is that due to previous enmity, on 29.7.2018 at 6.30 pm., the petitioners herein wrongfully restrained the defacto complainant and the first accused hit

¶21

on the body of the defacto complainant. Thereupon, the second accused hit on the arm with an iron rod and the third accused threatened with a sword. Crime was registered and investigation is progressing. Apprehending arrest, the

¶22

petitioners herein seek bail.

¶23

3. It is seen that in the course of

¶24

investigation, sections were altered. Now offences alleged are sections 323, 324, 326 and

¶25

Bail Appl..No. 5867 of 2018

¶26

¶27

294 (b) read with section 34 of the Indian Penal

¶28

Code. Though in the FIS, complainant has stated

¶29

that the third accused used a sword, corresponding injuries are not seen. It was clarified by the witness in the course of investigation that the third accused threatened with a rafter, which looked like a sword.

¶30

4. The materials now gathered show that the main offence under section 326 IPC is attributed to the second accused. Whether the remaining accused can be roped in the aid of section 34 IPC is a matter of evidence. They have no criminal antecedents. Having considered these facts, I am inclined to grant the benefit of prearrest bail to the first petitioner and the third petitioner on the following conditions:

¶31

(i) The first and third petitioner, who are the first and third accused shall appear before

¶32

the investigation officer within ten days from today and shall undergo interrogation and

¶33

recovery. Thereafter, if they are proposed to

¶34

¶35

Bail Appl..No. 5867 of 2018

¶36

be arrested, they shall be released on bail on each of them executing a bond for a sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand only) with two sureties for the like sum each.

¶37

investigating officer as and when called for and co-operate with the investigation.

¶38

(iii) They shall not threaten, coerce or intimidate the defacto complainant and his witnesses.

¶39

(iv) The bail application of the second petitioner is dismissed. However, he shall be permitted to surrender before the investigating officer to enable the recovery of the weapon used

¶40

and for interrogation. If the second accused (second petitioner) appears before the investigating officer within ten days from today, after interrogation, identification and recovery,

¶41

if any, he shall be produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate on the same day itself

¶42

and the court below may consider the bail

¶43

¶44

Bail Appl..No. 5867 of 2018

¶45

application, if any, filed by him on merits on the same day itself, having due regard to the fact that the second accused (second petitioner) is not involved in any other crime and the limited purpose of surrender was for interrogation and also for recovery of weapon if any.

¶46

Anticipatory Bail application is allowed in

¶47

part.

¶48

Sd/-

¶49

SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE

¶50

R.AV

¶51

//True Copy//

¶52

PA to Judge

Sooraj @ Kochumon v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sooraj @ Kochumon 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

Lithin Vs the State of Kerala

Babu T.D. @ Mathai Vs State of Kerala

Renjith Ambadi, Vs the State of Kerala

Ashraf @ Achappi Vs State of Kerala

Jayakrishnan Vs State of Kerala

Mukesh Vs State of Kerala