Allowed

Harikrishnan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC18 Feb 2019Bail Appl./1981/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala granted anticipatory bail to a first-time accused facing serious charges ( Sections 324, 326, 307 IPC ) involving midnight trespass and injury, subject to conditions including bond execution, appearing before the investigating officer, and surrendering the passport.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted on conditions including executing a bail bond, sureties, appearing before the investigation officer, regular reporting, non-intimidation of witnesses, and surrender of passpo

Harikrishnan 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 SUNIL THOMAS

¶4

MONDAY ,THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 29TH MAGHA, 1940

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 1981 of 2018

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER IN CRMC 283/2018 of SESSIONS COURT,THRISSUR DATED 02-03-2018

¶7

CRIME NO. 202/2018 OF OLLUR POLICE STATION , THRISSUR

¶8

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶9

HARIKRISHNAN AGED 19, S/O.SAJEEVAN, PONGANAMMOOLA HOUSE, NADATHARA DESOM AND VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADVS. SRI.SAIJO HASSAN SMT.P.PARVATHY SMT.SURYA P SHAJI SRI.BENOJ C AUGUSTIN SRI.RAFEEK. V.K. SRI.VISHNU BHUVANENDRAN

¶11

RESPONDENT/STATE:

¶12

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-31.

¶13

(PP) SRI. C.N. PRABHAKARAN

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.02.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

¶16

Bail Appl..No. 1981 of 2018

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

The petitioner herein stands arrayed as the second accused in Crime No.202/2018 of Ollur Police Station, for offences punishable under sections 324, 326 and 307 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶19

The allegation of the prosecution is that the petitioner herein along with two other accused, trespassed into the house of the defacto complainant during midnight, broke opened the door and when the defacto complainant came out of the house, he was hit on his head with an iron pipe. He sustained sutured wound on the scalp and fracture of the bone. He was rushed to the hospital, since he sustained serious injuries. He was rendered expert management. Crime was registered and the petitioner apprehends arrest, seeks bail.

¶20

Though the learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that he has settled the dispute with the defacto complainant and an affidavits to support it

¶21

Bail Appl..No. 1981 of 2018 3

¶22

have been filed, I am not inclined to accept it. The allegations against the petitioner is serious of having trespassed into the house during midnight and inflicted injuries and the offence is one under section 307 IPC. The incident happened as a retaliation for earlier dispute between the defacto complainant and the petitioner herein. Though the allegations are serious, considering the fact that the petitioner has no definite criminal antecedents and is of young age, I am inclined to grant the benefit of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner on the following conditions:

¶23

(i) Petitioner shall appear before the investigation officer within ten days from today and shall undergo interrogation. After interrogation, identification and recovery, if any, if he is proposed to be arrested, he shall be released on bail on executing a bond for a sum of Rs.60,000/- (Rupees sixty thousand only) with two sureties for the like sum each. One of the sureties shall be a father or mother of the petitioner herein and if none of them is available, a close blood relative can be the surety.

¶24

¶25

Bail Appl..No. 1981 of 2018

¶26

(ii) He shall appear before the investigating officer

¶27

on all Mondays and Fridays between 9 am and 10 am for a

¶28

period of three months, from the date of execution of the bond.

¶29

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

¶30

(iv) He shall not get involved in any other identical offence and the involvement if any, will be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶31

(v) He shall surrender his passport, if not

¶32

surrendered already, within seven days from the date of his release and if he is not holding the passport, he shall file an affidavit within seven days. Further direction regarding the release of the passport can be made by the trial court.

¶33

Anticipatory bail application is allowed as above.

¶34

Sd/- SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE

¶35

R.AV

¶36

//True Copy//

¶37

PA to Judge

Harikrishnan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harikrishnan 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

G. Unnikrishnan Nair Vs State of Kerala

G. Unnikrishnan Nair, Vs State of Kerala

G.Unnikrishnan Nair Vs State of Kerala

Ejas C.H., Vs State of Kerala

Saleesh a.P, Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Azzeez.M.S Vs State of Kerala