Allowed

Ajesh Kakkara, v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC24 May 2019Bail Appl./1743/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A đơn xin bảo lãnh bắt buộc (bail)., 24 tháng 5 năm 2019, tòa án cấp cao mang lại Kerala đã chấp thuận bảo lãnh tiền truy (pre-arrest bail) cho bị can thứ nhất trong một vụ việc liên quan đến bạo lực ở đường phố và các hành vi hung hăng khác. Tại đơn, người nộp đơn đã làm rõ mình là một hoạt động viên chính trị và đã thực thi quyền trợ giúp điều tra.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to appear for interrogation on 12.6.2019 at 10 a.m.; if arrested, to be released on bail for Rs.40,000 with two sureties, subject to conditions including non-influence of witnesses and no c

Ajesh Kakkara, Vs the State of Kerala — Public Procurement and Tenders | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MAY 2019 / 3RD JYAISHTA, 1941

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 1743 of 2019

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDERT IN CRMC 250/2019 of SESSIONS COURT,THRISSUR DATED 22-02-2019

¶7

CRIME NO. 101/2019 OF Kodungallur Police Station , Thrissur

¶8

PETITIONERS/ACUSED NO.1:

¶9

AJESH KAKKARA,AGED 32 YEARS S/O. ASOKAN, KAKKARA VEEDU, ALA P.O, KOTHAPARAMBU, KODUGALLUR

¶10

BY ADVS. SRI.T.S.SARATH SRI.MANU RAMACHANDRAN SRI.M.KIRANLAL SRI.R.RAJESH (VARKALA)

¶11

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT/STATE:

¶12

THE STATE OF KERALA, THROUGH STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KODUNGALLUR POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶13

OTHER PRESENT:

¶14

SRI.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.05.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

B.A.No.1743/2019

¶17

¶18

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

¶19

B.A.No. 1743 of 2019

¶20

Dated this the 24^th day of May, 2019

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The petitioner is the accused No.1 in Crime No.101/2019 of Kodungalloor Police Station, which has been registered for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 294(b), 341, 323,324, 308 and 506(i) r/w.34 of IPC.

¶23

The prosecution case in short is that on 16.1.2019 at about 9 p.m. , the accused persons five in number due to their previous enemity towards the defacto complainant had wrongfully restrained the defato complainant and his friend and A1 beat him with an iron rod and A3 to A5 had wrongfully restrained them, A2 beat him and A5 kicked him and A6 showered obscene words against him etc. According to the petitioner, who claims to be a political activists that the above said allegations have been falsely foisted on him on account of political enemity. Further it is pointed out that the petitioner being a political activists had to get himself involved in many dharnas, protests and demonstration and he has been made accused in twelve crimes all of which are in relation to obstruction of public pathway etc, which are all in connection with such public protest incidents

¶24

B.A.No.1743/2019 3

¶25

etc. Further it is pointed out that in yet another case, he was arrayed as accused wherein C.C.No.4875/2012 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kodungalloor, which was charged for offences punishable under Sections 427 and 34 of IPC and Section 3(2) (e) of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property (PDPP) Act, 1984 and that he has already been acquitted by the said trial Court as per the judgment dated 7.9.2017. It is further pointed out that three other accused persons in the very same crime have already been granted anticipatory bail by the Sessions Court concerned and the other accused was granted regular bail after remand. It is pointed out that the petitioner would fully cooperate with the enquiry and that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary and that this Court may grant anticipatory bail.

¶26

The plea for anticipatory bail has been opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor. It is stated that the petitioner has been implicated in 13 other crimes and one is in relation to penal provision of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 and that the investigation has not so far been completed, the petitioner is likely to influence the witness etc.

¶27

As regards the 13 of the crimes, the most serious one is the one in relation to which he has been implicated for the offence under PDDP Act, in which he has already been acquitted by the trial Court. All the other crimes appear to be in relation to the allegations of obstruction of public pathways, etc. in connection with public demonstrations.

¶28

B.A.No.1743/2019

¶29

¶30

Having regard to these aspects and also the fact that three of the other accused persons have already been granted anticipatory, this Court is inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the following directions and orders are passed:

¶31

1) The petitioner will immediately appear before the Investigating Officer in relation to Crime No.101/2019 of Kodungallur Police Station for interrogation process without any delay, at any rate, 10 a.m. on 12.6.2019.

¶32

2) After the interrogation process is over, in case the Investigating Officer arrests the petitioner (A1) in relation to the above said Crime, he shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand only) and on furnishing two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer concerned. However, the grant of bail is subject to the following conditions:

¶33

(a) The petitioner shall not involve in any criminal offences of similar nature.

¶34

(b) The petitioner shall fully co-operate with the investigation.

¶35

(c) The petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer as and when required in that connection.

¶36

(d) The petitioner shall not influence witness or shall not tamper or attempt to tamper evidence in any manner, whatsoever.

¶37

(e) The petitioner shall not visit or go anywhere near the residence of the defacto complainant in this case, until the conclusion of the trial in this case.

¶38

B.A.No.1743/2019

¶39

¶40

(f) If there is any violation of the abovesaid conditions by the petitioner then the jurisdictional court concerned stand hereby empowered, to consider the plea for cancellation of bail at the appropriate time.

¶41

(3) If the applicant do not comply with the abovesaid directions to appear for interrogation process as aforestated then the benefit of the abovesaid directions will automatically vacated without any further orders from this Court.

¶42

With these observations and directions, the above Bail Application will stand disposed of.

¶43

Sd/-

¶44

ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE

¶45

acd

Ajesh Kakkara, v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajesh Kakkara, 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ananthapadmanabhan Vs State of Kerala

Haider Ali a., Vs State of Kerala

Kiran Joseph Vs State of Kerala

Preejith.K.P Vs State of Kerala

K.P.Preejith Vs the State of Kerala

Dr. Sreelekha.S Vs Sam Cleetus