Partly allowed

Manikandan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC4 Feb 2019Bail Appl./240/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court considered bail pleas for three accused in a case involving assault with swords and grievous hurt. Bail was denied to two primary accused who used weapons but granted on conditions to the third accused who faced no specific weapon allegations and had no antecedents.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed for 3rd petitioner with conditions of bond, passport surrender, investigation officer appearances, no intimidation, and no further crimes. Bail dismissed for 1st and 2nd petitioners.

Manikandan Vs State of Kerala — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

¶4

MONDAY ,THE 04TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 15TH MAGHA, 1940

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 240 of 2019

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMP 69/2019 of JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ,ALATHUR

¶7

CRIME NO. 3/2019 OF Nenmara Police Station , Palakkad

¶8

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1, 2 & 4:

¶9

1 MANIKANDAN

¶10

AGED 20 YEARS

¶11

S/O.MOHANAN,PULAKKAL HOUSE,KACHERIPADAM, VITHINASSERY,PALAKKAD.

¶12

2 AKHIL

¶13

AGED 20 YEARS S/O.ANANTHAKRISHNAN,KACHERIPADAM, VITHINASSERY,PALAKKAD.

¶14

3 SYAM AGED 22 YEARS S/O.SIVADASAN,P.V.K.HOUSE,THALLUPARAMBU, VITHINASSERY,PALAKKAD.

¶15

BY ADV. SRI.V.A.JOHNSON (VARIKKAPPALLIL)

¶16

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶17

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

¶18

OTHER PRESENT:

¶19

PP AJITH MURALI

¶20

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.02.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

Bail Appl..No. 240 of 2019

¶22

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

The petitioners herein stand arrayed as accused no. 1, 2 & 4 in crime no.3/2019 of Nenmara Police Station for offences punishable under sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 326 and 308 r/w. 149 IPC.

¶25

The allegation of prosecution is that, on 01.1.2019 in connection with a new-year programme the petitioners along with their friends were proceeding on a motorcycle. This was allegedly questioned by the defacto complainant and his friend. The petitioners armed with sword attacked the defacto complainant and his friend. Both sustained injury. Crime was registered and the petitioners were arrested on 4.01.2019 and they are in custody. They seek bail.

¶26

It seems that the main allegations are attributed to accused no.1 & 2, who have used swords. Each of them inflicted injury on the defacto complainant and his friend. Wound certificate shows that there was a cut injury on the head, 10x3x3 c.m and another two injuries, 8x1 c.m and 3x2 c.m. Suturing

¶27

Bail Appl..No. 240 of 2019

¶28

¶29

was done and haematoma on the occipital region was initially suspected. The friend of the defacto complainant also sustained an injury of 4x2 c.m, which was sutured. They were referred to General Hospital, Palakkad. Having considered the use of sharp weapon by the petitioners, who are accused no.1 & 2, I am not inclined to grant them bail at this stage.

¶30

In the absence of any specific allegation of use of weapon by the 4^th accused, who is the third petitioner and that he has no criminal antecedents, I am inclined to grant bail to the 3^rd petitioner on the following conditions:

¶31

(i) The 3^rd petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of ₹40,000 (Rupees forty thousand only) with two sureties

¶32

for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.

¶33

(ii) He shall surrender his passport within 7 days from the date of release or if he is not in possession of the passport, file an affidavit within seven days before the jurisdictional magistrate. The further directions regarding its release can be done by the jurisdictional court.

¶34

Bail Appl..No. 240 of 2019

¶35

¶36

(iii) He shall appear before the Investigating officer on all Wednesdays between 9.00 a.m. and 10.00 a.m. for a period of two months from the date of his release or till the final report is filed,whichever is earlier.

¶37

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

¶38

(v) He shall not get involved in any other crime.

¶39

The bail application is allowed in part as above. The bail application of petitioners 1 and 2 is dismissed for the time being.

SD/-

SUNIL THOMAS

JUDGE

shg

Manikandan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manikandan 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

Riyas Vs the State of Kerala

Sijo Thomas Vs State of Kerala

Krishnakumar Vs the State of Kerala

Mr.Dato.S.Prakadeesh Kumar Vs Superintendent of Customs/Investigating Officer

Ahammed Kabeer Vs State of Kerala

Janardhanan Vs State of Kerala