Allowed

Sharon v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC2 Feb 2018Bail Appl./8036/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail application, the High Court of Kerala examined whether anticipatory bail should be granted to two accused persons charged with criminal trespass, mischief, and intimidation. The court found that despite allegations of terror, there was no specific charge of assault on a woman necessitating custodial interrogation. Consequently, bail was allowed pre-arrest.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners released on bail executing a bond of Rs.50,000 each with two sureties each, subject to reporting, non-influence of witnesses, and restriction on leaving Kerala.

Sharon 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 R. NARAYANA PISHARADI

¶4

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

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 8036 of 2017

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER IN CRMC 937/2017 of D.C.& SESSIONS COURT,MANJERI DATED 27-07-2017

¶7

CRIME NO. 144/2017 OF VAZHAKKAD POLICE STATION , MALAPPURAM

¶8

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NO.2 & 3

¶9

1 SHARON

¶10

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

¶11

2 ABHIJEETH P.T AGED 25 YEARS, S/O. ASOKAN, THELATHODY, PUTHUKODE, MALAPPURAM

¶12

BY ADVS.SRI.S.RAJEEV

¶13

SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN

¶14

SRI.V.VINAY SRI.D.FEROZE

¶15

RESPONDENT(S)/STATE:

¶16

1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 682 031 (CRIME NO 144/2017 OF VAZHAKKAD POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT)

¶17

2. STATION HOUSE OFFICER VASHAKKAD POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT 673 640 (CRIME NO 144/2017 OF VAZHAKKAD POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT)

¶18

R BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. C.K.PRASAD

¶19

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

¶20

Bail Appl..No. 8036 of 2017

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONERS EXHIBITS:

¶23

ANNEXURE-I TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27.07.2017 IN CRL MC NO.937/2017 PASSED BY THE COURT OF SESSIONS, MANJERI

¶24

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL

// TRUE COPY //

P.A TO JUDGE

R. NARAYANA PISHARADI, J.

¶29

===================== B.A No.8036 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 accused in the case registered as Crime No.144/2017 of Vazhakkad Police Station under Sections 143, 147, 148, 452, 341, 354, 324, 427 and 506 (ii) r/w 149 I.P.C.

¶35

The prosecution case is that on the night of 13.06.2017/14.06.2017, at about 01.00 hours, the petitioners along with the other accused criminally trespassed to the house of the defacto complainant and they committed mischief by destroying the furniture therein and they broke the window glasses. It is further alleged that they threatened the defacto complainant that they would kill her and the

¶36

members of her family.

¶37

¶38

B.A No.8036 of 2017

¶39

I have heard the learned Counsel for the

¶40

petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the

¶41

Case Diary.

¶42

The petitioners are said to be 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 carrying deadly weapons. However, the fact remains that in the First Information Statement given to the police, there is no allegation that the petitioners have assaulted or used criminal force to any woman attracting the offence punishable under Section 354 I.P.C. Considering the facts and circumstances, I am of the view that 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.

¶43

¶44

B.A No.8036 of 2017

¶45

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

¶46

The petitioners shall be released on bail on executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- each (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two sureties each for the like amount in the event of their arrest by the police in Crime No.144/2017 of Vazhakkad Police Station.

¶47

The petitioners shall appear before the 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.

¶48

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.

¶49

The petitioners shall not leave the State of Kerala without the prior permission of the jurisdictional court concerned.

¶50

¶51

B.A No.8036 of 2017

¶52

The petitioners shall appear before the

¶53

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

¶54

Sd/-

¶55

R. NARAYANA PISHARADI JUDGE

¶56

SB/02/02/2018

¶57

// true copy //

¶58

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