Allowed

Krishnan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC20 Sept 2019Bail Appl./1947/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application regarding fabricated allegations, the petitioners sought release on anticipatory bail. Before granting bail, the High Court clarified the necessity of custodial interrogation.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner was released on bail upon executing a bond and furnishing two solvent sureties, subject to conditions regarding cooperation and non-influence of witnesses.

Krishnan Vs State of Kerala — Anticipatory Bail | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2019 / 29TH BHADRA, 1941

¶5

BAIL APPL.NO.1947 OF 2019

¶6

CRIME NO.204/2019 OF PUDUKKAD POLICE STATION, THRISSUR

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1:

¶8

KRISHNAN, AGED 61 YEARS, S/O. PAPPU, KUNDEPARAMBIL, NENMANIKKARA VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISRTRICT, PIN - 680 301.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.M.G.SREEJITH

¶10

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶11

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED DBY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 682 031.

¶12

ADDL. 2 YAMUNA K., AGED 38 YEARS, JUNIOR PUBLIC HEALTH NURSE, NENMANIKKARA, THRISSUR-680 301.

¶13

IS IMPLEADED AS ADDL.R2 PER ORDER DATED 10.06.2019 IN CRL.M.A.NO.3/2019.

¶14

SRI.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR R1.

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.09.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

¶17

B.A. No. 1947 of 2019

¶18

Dated this the 20^th day of September, 2019

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

The petitioner herein has been arrayed as accused No.1 among the two accused in the instant Crime No.204/2019 of Pudukkadu Police Station, which has been registered for offences punishable under Secs.353, 34 of the IPC and Sec. 119(b) of the Kerala Police Act, on the basis of FIS given by lady defacto complainant on 13.3.2019 at about 8.27 pm, in respect of the alleged incidents which have happened on 12.3.2019 at about 12.30 noon.

¶21

The brief of the prosecution case is that, the lady defacto complainant is the Junior Public Nurse attached to the Family Health Centre of the area concerned, and that she had come to the factory of the petitioner, on getting information that one of the migrant lady labourer who is employed in that fact has delivered a baby in the factory premises in unhygienic atmosphere,and that when she had reached the petitioner's factory, the petitioner (A1) and his employee (A2) had unnecessarily raised disputes with her, and had obstructed her from carrying out her duty, and that thereby the petitioner has committed the abovesaid offences.

¶22

Per contra, the learned counsel for the petitioner would

¶23

..3..

¶24

B.A. No. 1947 of 2019

¶25

urge that the abovesaid allegations are absolutely false and fabricated, and that the petitioner and his employees had immediately informed the Family Health Centre of the area concerned for medical assistance, when they came to know that one of the lady employee was undergoing labour pain, and there was lot of delay on the part of the defacto complainant in immediately coming to the premises, and the petitioner (A1) and his employee (A2) had only pointed out to the lady that the long delay on her part would be risky for the mother and the child, and altercations have taken place, and that it cannot be contend even for a moment that the petitioner and his employee have in any manner obstructed the defacto complainant to discharge her official duties.

¶26

Learned Prosecutor has opposed the plea for anticipatory bail.

¶27

After hearing both sides and after careful evaluation of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to take the view that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner may not really be necessary for effectuating smooth and fair conduct of investigation in this case. Accordingly it is ordered that, in the event

¶28

..4..

¶29

B.A. No. 1947 of 2019

¶30

of the petitioner being arrested by police in connection with the abovesaid crime, he shall be released on bail on executing bond for Rs.40,000/- and on furnishing two solvent sureties for the like sum, each to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer concerned.

¶31

Further it is also ordered that the grant of bail will be subject to following conditions:-

¶32

i. The petitioner shall not involve in any criminal offences of similar nature.

¶33

ii. The petitioner shall fully co-operate with the investigation. iii. The petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer as and when required in that connection.

¶34

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

¶35

If there is any violation of the abovesaid conditions by

¶36

the petitioner then the jurisdictional court concerned stand hereby empowered, to consider the plea for cancellation of bail at the appropriate time.

¶37

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

¶38

ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE

¶39

MMG

Krishnan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishnan 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

Vishnu K.N. Vs State of Kerala

Suresh.v Vs State of Kerala

Rajesh T.N., Vs State of Kerala

Sudheesh Vs Snija P.K.

Pradeesh Kumar, Vs the State of Kerala

Nisar K.M. Vs State of Kerala