Allowed

Sharon v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC2 Feb 2018Bail Appl./8023/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala granted anticipatory bail to Accused Nos. 2 and 3 in a criminal trespass and assault case. The court found no specific allegation against them in the FIR and no need for custodial interrogation, exercising discretion to grant pre-arrest bail.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners released on bail on executing a bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties each of like amount, with conditions to appear before IO, not influence witnesses, stay in Kerala, and appear when dire

Sharon 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 R. NARAYANA PISHARADI

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018 / 13TH MAGHA, 1939

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 8023 of 2017

¶6

CRIME NO. 142/2017 OF VAZHAKKAD POLICE STATION , MALAPPURAM

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NO.2 & 3

¶8

1 SHARON,

¶9

AGED 25 YEARS, S/O. SHANMUGHAN, THAMARATH HOUSE,

¶10

PUTHUKODE, MALAPPURAM.

¶11

2 ABHIJEETH P.T,

¶12

AGED 25 YEARS, S/O. ASOKAN, THELATHODI, PUTHUKODE, MALAPPURAM.

¶13

BY ADVS.SRI.S.RAJEEV SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN SRI.V.VINAY SRI.D.FEROZE

¶14

RESPONDENT(S)/STATE:

¶15

1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031, (CRIME NO. 142/2017 OF VAZHAKKAD POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT).

¶16

2. STATION HOUSE OFFICER, VAZHAKKAD POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-673 640. (CRIME NO. 142/2017 OF VAZHAKKAD POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT).

¶17

R BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.K.PRASAD

¶18

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02-02-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

Bail Appl..No. 8023 of 2017

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONERS EXHIBITS:

¶22

ANNEXURE-I TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27.07.2017 IN CRL.MC NO.938/2017 PASSED BY THE COURT OF SESSIONS, MANJERI.

¶23

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL

// TRUE COPY //

P.A TO JUDGE

R. NARAYANA PISHARADI, J.

¶28

=====================

¶29

B.A No.8023 of 2017

¶30

========================== Dated this the 02^nd day of February, 2018

¶31

ORDER

¶32

This is an application for anticipatory bail filed

¶33

under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶34

The petitioners are the second and the third

¶35

accused in the case registered as Crime No.142/2017 of Vazhakkad Police Station under Sections 143, 147, 148, 452, 341, 324, 354, 427 and 506(ii) r/w 149 I.P.C.

¶36

The prosecution case is that on the night of 14.06.2017/15.06.2017, at about 01.00 hours, the petitioners along with the other accused criminally trespassed into the house of the defacto complainant and that they caught hold of the hair of the defacto complainant and pushed her down by holding her chest and threatened her. It is alleged that the accused were carrying deadly weapons and that they broke the window glasses of the house and other furniture in

¶37

the house and caused damage to the car which was parked in

¶38

the compound of the house.

¶39

¶40

B.A No.8023 of 2017

¶41

I have heard the learned Counsel for the

¶42

petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the Case Diary.

¶43

The petitioners are the neighbours of the defacto complainant. It is true that they have allegedly created an atmosphere of terror, fear and horror by trespassing into the house during night with deadly weapons. However, the First Information Statement given to the police by the defacto complainant does not mention the name of the first petitioner and there is no specific allegation against the petitioners that they used criminal force with an intention to outrage the modesty of the defacto complainant. At any rate, custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not necessary to have an effective investigation in the case. The prosecution has also no apprehension that on getting bail, the petitioners would flee from justice. In these circumstances, I find that the discretion of the Court can be exercised in favour of the petitioners to grant them pre-arrest bail.

¶44

¶45

B.A No.8023 of 2017

¶46

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

¶47

The petitioners shall be released on bail on executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two sureties each of the like amount in the event of their arrest by the police in Crime No.142/2017 of Vazhakkad Police Station.

¶48

The petitioners shall appear before the

¶49

Investigating Officer between 09 a.m and 11 a.m on all Mondays and Thursdays for a period of two months after being released on bail.

¶50

The petitioners shall not in any manner influence or intimidate the prosecution witnesses, including the defacto complainant. They will not make any attempt to tamper with the evidence in the case.

¶51

The petitioners shall not leave the State of Kerala

¶52

without the prior permission of the jurisdictional court concerned.

¶53

¶54

B.A No.8023 of 2017

¶55

The petitioners shall appear before the

¶56

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

¶57

Sd/-

¶58

R. NARAYANA PISHARADI JUDGE

¶59

SB/02/02/2018

¶60

// true copy //

¶61

P.A to Judge

Sharon v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sharon 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

Balakrishnan Vs the State of Kerala

Prabhu R Vs State of Kerala

Sasi Vs State of Kerala

Sharon Vs State of Kerala

Sharon Vs State of Kerala

Mini Radhakrishnan Vs the Sub Inspector of Police