Partly allowed

Aneesh Thomas v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC10 Jan 2018Bail Appl./8678/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala disposed of a bail application under Section 438 CrPC. The petitioners were accused of a violent assembly causing grievous injuries. The Court refused bail to two accused but allowed it for the others subject to strict conditions regarding investigation cooperation and indemnity.

What did the court decide?

Pre-arrest bail granted to petitioners 2, 3, and 5 subject to appearance before investigating officer, bond execution, cooperation with investigation, and compliance with specific restrictions.

Aneesh Thomas Vs the State of Kerala — Anticipatory Bail | 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 10TH DAY OF JANUARY 2018 / 20TH POUSHA, 1939

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 8678 of 2017

¶6

CRIME NO. 1051/2017 OF MARANGATTUPALLY POLICE STATION , KOTTAYAM DISTRICT

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED 2 TO 5 & 7

¶8

1 ANEESH THOMAS.,

¶9

S/O. T.M. BABY, AGED 33 YEARS, RESIDING AT THADATHIL

¶10

MEPPURATHU HOUSE, VAYALA P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶11

2 BABY THOMAS @ T.M. BABY,

¶12

S/O. MATHAI CHACKO, AGED 58 YEARS, RESIDING AT THADATHIL

¶13

MEPPURATHU HOUSE, VAYALA P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶14

3 K.P. RAGHAVAN @ APPACHAN,

¶15

S/O. CHOTHAN, AGED 52 YEARS, RESIDING AT PIRATTADIYIL HOUSE, VAYALA P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶16

4 KUTTAYI @ DEVASSIA,

¶17

AGED 47 YEARS, S/O. OUSEPH, RESIDING AT PALAKKUZHIYIL HOUSE, VAYALA P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶18

5 RENEESH SEBASTIAN,

¶19

S/O. DEVASSIA, AGED 27 YEARS, RESIDING AT PALAKKUZHIYIL

¶20

HOUSE, VAYALA P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶21

BY ADVS.SRI.T.MADHU SMT.C.R.SARADAMANI

¶22

RESPONDENT(S)/STATE: -----------------------

¶23

THE STATE OF KERALA THROUGH THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, MARANGATTUPALLY POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.

¶24

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. SAJJU.S.

¶25

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10-01-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶26

sdr/-

¶27

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, J.

¶28

B.A.No.8678 of 2017

¶29

Dated this the 10^th day of January, 2018

¶30

ORDER

¶31

1.This petition is filed under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶32

2.The petitioners herein are the accused Nos. 2 to 5 and 7 in Crime No.1051 of 2017 of the Marangattupally Police Station, registered alleging offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 294(b), 323, 324, 326, 341, 354, 354B, 506(ii) read with Sec. 149 of the IPC.

¶33

3.Prosecution allegation is that on 24.08.2017 at about 9 p.m, the petitioners herein along with the rest of the accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of their common object assaulted the de facto complainant and his family members causing grievous injuries .

¶34

4.The Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the accused Nos. 9, 10 and 11 have been granted pre arrest bail by the Court of Session by Annexures-A2 and A3 orders. According to the learned counsel, the petitioners are

¶35

B.A.No. 8678 of 2017 2

¶36

falsely implicated and he prays for issuance of necessary orders.

¶37

5.The learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer. It is submitted that insofar as the petitioners 1 and 4 are concerned, who are accused Nos. 2 and 5, there are specific allegations that they had assaulted the victim with a machete.

¶38

6.I have considered the submissions advanced. I find merit in

¶39

the submission of the learned Public Prosecutor. Having regard to the nature and gravity of the allegations and the severity of injuries inflicted by petitioners 1 and 4, I am not inclined to grant an order of pre-arrest bail to them. This petition, insofar as the petitioners 1 and 4 are concerned, will stand dismissed. However, insofar as the petitioners 2, 3 and 5 are concerned, I am inclined to grant pre-arrest bail.

¶40

However, it shall be subject to the following conditions.

¶41

7.In the result, this petition is partly allowed subject to the following conditions.

¶42

i).The petitioners 2, 3 and 5 shall appear before the investigating officer within ten days from today and shall undergo interrogation. Thereafter, if they are proposed to be arrested,

¶43

B.A.No. 8678 of 2017 3

¶44

they shall be released on bail 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.

¶45

ii)The petitioners 2, 3 and 5 shall co-operate with the investigation and shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when directed.

¶46

iii)The petitioners 2, 3 and 5 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.

¶47

iv)The petitioners 2, 3 and 5 shall not commit any similar offence while on bail.

¶48

v) If they surrender before the court concerned, this order shall not be applicable and the jurisdictional court may pass appropriate orders.

¶49

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

¶50

in accordance with the law.

¶51

Sd/-

¶52

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V.,

¶53

JUDGE

¶54

IAP

Aneesh Thomas v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aneesh Thomas v. the 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

Aloshious .L. Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Shaji Vs State of Kerala

Ajesh@Appu Vs State of Kerala

Dasan Vs State of Kerala

Suresh Gopi Vs Superintendent of Police

E.Mohiyudeen Vs the State of Kerala