Allowed

Ashokan.K. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC6 Feb 2019Bail Appl./105/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court granted anticipatory bail to five Grama Panchayat members accused of attempting to snatch an attendance register during a confidence motion meeting. Bail was granted subject to conditions regarding interrogation and cooperation.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted subject to appearing for interrogation, executing bond, cooperating with investigation, and not threatening witnesses.

Ashokan.K. Vs State of Kerala — Caste Atrocities | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

¶4

WEDNESDAY,THE 06TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 17TH MAGHA, 1940

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 105 of 2019

¶6

CRIME NO. 3226/2018 OF Perumbavoor Police Station , Ernakulam

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

1 ASHOKAN.K. AGED 46 YEARS

¶9

S/O. KESAVAN NAIR, PUTHIYEDATH HOUSE, VALAYANCHIRANGARA P.O, PERUMBAVOOR, PANCHAYAT MEMBER, VENGOLA GRAMA PANCHAYATH-683 556

¶10

2 GISHA

¶11

AGED 38 YEARS

¶12

W/O. UNNIKRISHNAN, AMMUPPILLI HOUSE, MEPPRATHUPADI, VENGOLA P.O, PERUMBAVOOR, PANCHAYAT MEMBER-383 556, GRAMA PANCHAYAT.

¶13

3 RAHIM AGED 48 YEARS S/O. MUHAMMED, MALIYANVED HOUSE, NEDUMTHOD, MUDIKKAL P.O, PERUMBAVOOR, PANCHAYAT MEMBER, VENGOLA GRAMA PANCHAYAT-683 556

¶14

4 AKHIL V KARTHA AGED 28 YEARS S/O. VIJAYAN, PUTHUPARA HOUSE, VENGOLA P.O, ARAKKPPADY, PERUMBAVOOR-683 556

¶15

5 RASHEED AGED 40 YEARS S/O. BAVA, NADUKKUDY HOUSE, THANDEKKAD, MUDIKKAL P.O, PERUMBAVOOR-683 556

¶16

BY ADVS.

¶17

SRI.S.UNNIKRISHNAN (NELLAD) SRI.K.R.PRATHISH

RESPONDENT/S:

BA NO. 105/2019

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031

¶22

2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER PERUMBAVOOR POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683 542

¶23

3 P.A.MUKTHAR AGED 43, S/O. ALIYAR, POOVATHINKAL HOUSE, THANDAKAD, PONJASSERY (P.O.) ERNAKULAM PIN 693 547.

¶24

(ADDL.R3 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 6/2/2019 IN CRL.M.A. NO.1/2019)

¶25

BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW A KUZHALANADAN

¶26

OTHER PRESENT:

¶27

SR.PP C.N PRABHAKARAN

¶28

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.02.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

BA NO. 105/2019

O R D E R

The petitioners stand arrayed as accused 1 to 5 in Crime No.3226/2018 of Perumbavoor Police station, for offences punishable under sections 379 and 353 read with section 34 IPC.

¶33

2.Petitioners are the members of a Grama Panchayat. On 26/12/2018 at about 11.30 a.m. when the Grama Panchayat met for taking up resolution of non confidence motion against the president, the attendance register was snatched by the petitioners with the intention of committing theft. Crime was registered. Petitioners apprehending arrest, seek bail.

¶34

Learned Public Prosecutor on instructions submitted that, petitioners are arrayed as accused though not in the rank in which they are arrayed as petitioners. It seems that the allegation against the petitioners are to be established by the oral evidence essentially. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that ingredient of theft is not made out and the book was recovered from the Panchayat office itself.

¶35

On the other hand, learned counsel for the contesting respondent contended that, it was a case wherein the property belonging to the Panchayat was forcefully taken away by the petitioners, thereby constituting an offence.

¶36

Having considered the nature of allegations, I do not feel that

¶37

BA NO. 105/2019

¶38

¶39

custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not warranted. Hence, bail is granted to the petitioners subject to the following conditions:

¶40

(i). Petitioners 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 each of the petitioners executing a bond for a sum of Rs.30,000/-(Rupees thirty thousand only) with two sureties for the like sum each.

¶41

ii). They shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called for and co-operate with the investigation.

¶42

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

¶43

iv). They shall not get involved in any other offence.

¶44

Anticipatory Bail Application is allowed.

Sd/-

SUNIL THOMAS

JUDGE

dpk

Ashokan.K. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashokan.K. 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

Mr.Dato.S.Prakadeesh Kumar Vs Superintendent of Customs/Investigating Officer

Ahammed Kabeer Vs State of Kerala

Janardhanan Vs State of Kerala

Abhilash, Vs State of Kerala

Muhamed Ashique Vs State of Kerala

Nazir Vs State of Kerala