Allowed

Bijukumar v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC22 Mar 2019Bail Appl./1832/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala granted anticipatory bail to three petitioners accused of offences under Sections 294(b), 341, 324, 326, 427, and 308 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. The court held that custodial interrogation was unnecessary and directed release on a personal bond of Rs. 35,000 each with two sureties, subject to reporting and non-interference conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners granted bail on Rs. 35,000 bond with two sureties each; conditions to report to IO and not tamper with investigation.

Bijukumar Vs State of Kerala — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 1ST CHAITHRA, 1941

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 1832 of 2019

¶6

CRIME NO. 34/2019 OF Parassala Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram

¶7

PETITIONER/S:

¶8

1 BIJUKUMAR , AGED 34 YEARS S/O. MANIYAN, PATTA VILAKOM HOUSE, VATTAVILA.P.O., NEYATINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 2 BAJILAL AGED 32 YEARS S/O. MR. RAJKUMAR, PADIPURAVILAKAM HOUSE, VATTAVILA P.O., NEYATINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURA DISTRICT. 3 JOYMON T.C AGED 35 YEARS S/O. MR. THANKAPPAN, THATTARASSERRY HOUSE, EZHAKKONAM, VATTAVILA P.O., NEYATINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM SMT.MERCIAMMA MATHEW SMT.N.RAJI SRI.ASWIN.P.JOHN

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA.

¶11

2 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE PARASALA POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶12

OTHER PRESENT:

¶13

SRI.C.S.HRITHWIK,PP

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.03.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

Bail Appl..No. 1832 of 2019 -2-

¶16

ORDER

¶17

The petitioners are accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4 in Crime No. 34 of 2019 of Parassala Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 294 (b), 341, 324, 326, 427 and 308 read with Section 34 IPC.

¶18

The prosecution allegation is that on 6-1-2019 at 1.40 p.m., the petitioners and the other accused attacked the de facto complainant, causing injuries including fracture on the right ulna of the de facto complainant.

¶19

The petitioners have filed this application under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶20

4. Heard.

¶21

It appears that there was another incident just forty minutes prior to the incident in this case, wherein the de facto complainant herein and others were the

¶22

Bail Appl..No. 1832 of 2019

¶23

-3-

¶24

accused. The said case was registered on the statement of the mother of the third petitioner herein. That case was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 452, 294 (b), 323, 427 and 506 (ii) read with Section 149 IPC.

¶25

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not necessary in this case. In the said circumstances, an order Section 438 Cr.P.C. in favour of the petitioners will be justified.

¶26

In the result, this application stands allowed, and the respondents are directed to release the petitioners on bail, in the event of their arrest in connection with Crime No. 34 of 2019 of Parassala Police Station, on condition of each of the petitioners executing a bond for Rs.35,000/(Rupees thirty five thousand only) each with two solvent sureties each, each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the 2nd respondent before whom the petitioners shall surrender within ten days, if not arrested in the meantime, and subject to the following further conditions:-

¶27

Bail Appl..No. 1832 of 2019

¶28

-4-

¶29

(i) The petitioners shall report before the Investigating Officer on every Saturday between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m. for three months and thereafter, as and when required by the investigating officer for interrogation.

¶30

(ii) The petitioners shall not intimidate or influence the witnesses or in any way tamper with the investigation.

¶31

(iii) The petitioners shall not get involved in any offence during the pendency of this case.

¶32

Dated this the 22^nd day of March, 2019.

¶33

Sd/- B.Sudheendra Kumar, Judge

¶34

ani/

Bijukumar v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bijukumar 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

Ansaf E.S., Vs State of Kerala

Abdurahiman Vs State of Kerala

Santhosh Krishnan Vs State of Kerala

Vinod Kumar.v.M., Vs State of Kerala

K.Anilkumar, Vs State of Kerala

Manoj @ Manu Vs State of Kerala