Allowed

Sureshkumar v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC12 Jun 2019Bail Appl./2511/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allowed an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for the petitioner accused of offences related to the agitation regarding entry of women into Sabarimala Temple, finding custodial interrogation unnecessary in the circumstances.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail upon execution of a bond for Rs. 40,000/- with two solvent sureties, subject to conditions of reporting to IO and not tampering with investigation or witnesses.

Sureshkumar Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE 2019 / 22ND JYAISHTA, 1941

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 2511 of 2019

¶6

CRIME NO. 10/2019 OF Neyyattinkara Police Station , Thiruvananthapuram

¶7

PETITIONER/S:

¶8

SURESHKUMAR AGED 44 YEARS S/O.SUKUMARAN NAIR, MANJATHALAVEEDU, MARUTHATHOOR, CHAYIKKOTTUKONAM, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695121.

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.V.G.ARUN (K/795/2004) SMT.INDULEKHA JOSEPH SRI.NEERAJ NARAYAN

¶10

RESPONDENT/S:

¶11

STATE OF KERALA THROUGH SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NEYYATTINKARA POLICE STATION, THIRUVANNATHAPURAM REPRESENTED THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.

¶12

OTHER PRESENT:

¶13

SMT.V.SREEJA, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.06.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

Bail Appl..No. 2511 of 2019

¶16

-2-

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

The petitioner is the first accused in Crime No. 10 of 2019 of Neyyattinkara Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 145, 147, 148, 188, 283 and 332 read with Section 149 IPC, Section 4 (1) read with Section 6 of the Kerala Public Ways (Restriction of Assembly and Processions) Act, 2011 and Section 3 (2) of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984.

¶19

The petitioner has filed this application under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶20

3. Heard.

¶21

The incident in this case was on 2-1-2010 at about 1.30 p.m. The incident in this case occurred in connection with the issue relating to the entry of women of a particular age group to Sabarimala Temple.

¶22

Bail Appl..No. 2511 of 2019

¶23

Altogether, nearly 33 persons took part in the agitation. It is alleged that the 6th accused in the crime burnt tyres on the road causing damage to the tarred portion of the road and thereby the Government sustained a loss to the tune of Rs. 5396/-. There is no allegation that the petitioner committed any offence under the PDPP Act. No specific overt act was also alleged against the petitioner.

¶24

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

¶25

In the result, this bail application stands allowed and it is directed that the petitioner shall be released on bail, in the event of his arrest in connection with the above said crime, on condition of the petitioner executing a bond for Rs. 40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand only) with two solvent sureties, each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer concerned, before whom the

¶26

Bail Appl..No. 2511 of 2019

¶27

petitioner shall surrender within 10 days, if not arrested in the mean time, and subject to the following further conditions:-

¶28

i) The petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer as and when required by the Investigating Officer for interrogation.

¶29

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

¶30

iii) The petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation.

¶31

Sd/-B.Sudheendra Kumar, Judge.