Allowed

Pradeep v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC12 Feb 2019Bail Appl./239/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In two bail applications, the Court granted pre-arrest bail to accused persons involved in an assault at an SNDP Union office. The Court noted the internecine dispute between union factions and avoided custodial interrogation, imposing bond conditions and reporting requirements.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners granted pre-arrest bail on bonds of 40,000/- each with two sureties for 40,000/-, subject to reporting and non-coercion conditions.

Pradeep Vs State of Kerala — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 23RD MAGHA, 1940

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 8096 of 2018

¶6

CRIME NO. 2551/2018 OF CHENGANNOOR POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 TO 4:

¶8

1 MOHANAN V.G., AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.RAGHAVAN, VALIYAKATTIL, VENMANI VILLAGE, CHENGANNUR TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶9

2 DEVADAS R, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.P.K RAVEENDRAN, PARAPPURATHU DEVANIVAS, VENMANI EAROMMURIYIL, VENMANI VILLAGE, CHENGANNUR TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶10

3 VIJINRAJ, AGED 29 YEARS, S/O.RAJAN K., R.V.BHAVANAM, KODUKULANJIKARODU MURIYIL, VENMANI VILLAGE, CHENGANNUR TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶11

4 RAJESH V.J., AGED 31 YEARS, S/O.JOHN ROSE, VALIYATHARATHEKEKARA, KOZHUVALLUR MURI, MULAKUZHA VILLAGE, CHENGANNUR TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.T.P.PRADEEP

¶13

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:

¶14

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.

¶15

2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, CHENGANNUR POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT - 689 121.

¶16

Bail Appl..Nos. 8096 of 2018 & 239 of 2019

¶17

¶18

3 ADDL.R3 SUNIL VALLIYIL AGED 51 YEARS S/O P.N DIVAKARAN, VALLIYIL HOUSE, AGADICAL SOUTH PO, CHENGANNUR VILLAGE, CHENGANNUR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN-688001.

¶19

(ADDL.R3 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 13/12/2018 IN CRL.MA.01/2018)

¶20

BY ADV. SRI.K.N.RADHAKRISHNAN(THIRUVALLA)

¶21

PP AJITH MURALI

¶22

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.02.2019, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..239/2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

Bail Appl..Nos. 8096 of 2018 & 239 of 2019

¶24

¶25

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶26

PRESENT

¶27

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

¶28

TUESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 23RD MAGHA, 1940

¶29

Bail Appl..No. 239 of 2019

¶30

CRIME NO. 2551/2018 OF CHENGANNOOR POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA

¶31

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED A5 TO 8:

¶32

1 PRADEEP AGED 27 YEARS S/O PRASAD, THETTUPARAUZHATHIL VEEDU, CHENGANNUR VILLAGE, CHENGANNUR TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶33

2 SUJITH, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O. SADANANDAN, THATTUPURAKKAL VEEDU VENMANI ERAM MURIYIL, VENMANI VILLAGE, CHENGANNUR TALUK ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT

¶34

2 SURESH AGED 45 YEARS S/O.SREEDHARAN, SURESH BHAVANAM, VENMANI ERAM MURIYIL, VENMANI VILLAGE, CHENGANNUR TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶35

3 KARTHIKEYAN, AGED 65 YEARS S/O KOCHUKUNJU, PUTHUKERIYIL VEEDU, VENMANI ERAM MURIYIL, VENMANI VILLAGE, CHENGANNUR TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶36

BY ADV. SRI.T.P.PRADEEP

¶37

Bail Appl..Nos. 8096 of 2018 & 239 of 2019

¶38

¶39

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:

¶40

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

¶41

2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER CHENGANNUR POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT 689121.

¶42

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.02.2019, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..8096/2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶43

Bail Appl..Nos. 8096 of 2018 & 239 of 2019

¶44

¶45

O R D E R

¶46

Petitioners stand arrayed as accused in Crime No.2551/2018 of Chengannur Police Station, Alappuzha District for offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 341, 323, 324, 379 read with Section 34 IPC. Accused Nos.1 to 4 are the petitioners in B.A.No.8096/2018 and accused Nos.5 to 8 are the petitioners in B.A.No.239/2019.

¶47

2. Prosecution allegation is that, on 22.11.2018, petitioners trespassed into the office of an SNDP Union and attacked the de facto complainant, who is the Ad-hoc committee Convener of the union. It is alleged that petitioners assaulted the de facto complainant and took away his mobile phone and other documents. Crime was registered on the basis of

¶48

the FIR laid by the de facto complainant. Investigation is progressing. Apprehending arrest, petitioners seek bail.

¶49

Bail Appl..Nos. 8096 of 2018 & 239 of 2019

¶50

¶51

3. Opposing the application, learned counsel for the de facto complainant contended that it is a case wherein the de facto complainant was seriously attacked by the petitioners and took away the entire documents as well as the cash kept in the union office.

¶52

4. Disputing this, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that they have not taken any documents, records or registers illegally and they claimed to be in administration of the office. According to the learned counsel for the de facto complainant, considering the seriousness of the crime involved, investigation

¶53

has now been taken over by the CBCID. It was contended that the incidents that happened on that day including the removal of some items, is

¶54

recorded in the CC TV. Definitely, it is for the investigation to seize the CC TV visuals and to ascertain the details of items carried from

¶55

the office, if any.

¶56

Bail Appl..Nos. 8096 of 2018 & 239 of 2019

¶57

¶58

5. It is true that the dispute exists between two factions of union. Contentions and rival contentions are set up. In this scenario, it may not be safe to order a custodial interrogation. Hence, I am inclined to grant

¶59

the benefit of pre-arrest bail to the petitioners.

¶60

Accordingly, these bail applications are allowed on the following conditions:

¶61

(i) Petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer within 10 days from today and shall undergo interrogation. Thereafter, if they are proposed to be arrested, they shall be

¶62

released on bail on each of the petitioner executing a bond for a sum of 40,000/- (Rupees₹ forty thousand only) with two sureties for the like sum each.

¶63

(ii) They shall appear before the

¶64

Investigating officer on all Thursdays between 9.00 a.m. and 10.00 a.m. for a period of two

¶65

Bail Appl..Nos. 8096 of 2018 & 239 of 2019

¶66

¶67

months from the date of execution of the bond.

¶68

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

¶69

(iv) They shall appear before the

¶70

Investigating Officer as and when called for and co-operate with the investigation which includes production of records and registers, if any, in their possession and if it is directed to be produced by the investigating agency.

¶71

Sd/-

¶72

SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE

¶73

Pn 13/02

Pradeep v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradeep 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

Joby Cherian Vs State of Kerala

Badhusha Vs State of Kerala

Joakim Yesudasan Vs State of Kerala

Nahas, Vs State of Kerala

Vyshnav.v.R Vs State of Kerala

Babu Vs State of Kerala