Allowed

Ananthakrishnan, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC13 Nov 2019Bail Appl./3351/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application for accused Nos. 2 to 4 in a crime involving IPC offences. Court held anticipatory bail unnecessary for the 2nd petitioner as not arrayed as accused but granted bail for 1st and 3rd petitioners, dispensing with further identity confirmation of the real culprit, subject to standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted to 1st and 3rd petitioners if arrested, with bond of Rs.40,000 each and two sureties, subject to reporting and investigation conditions.

Ananthakrishnan, 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 ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 22ND KARTHIKA, 1941

¶5

BAIL APPL.NO.3351 OF 2019

¶6

CRIME NO.287/2019 OF NARUVAMOODU POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.2 TO 4:

¶8

1 ANANTHAKRISHNAN, AGED 34 YEARS, S/O.BABU, LAKSHMI BHAVAN, PUNNAVILA VEEDU, PAROOR KUZHI, PALLICHAL VILLAGE, VEDIVACHAN KOVIL P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶9

2 RATHEESH, AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.RAVEENDRAN, RACHITHA BHAVAN, ONNAMPARA, THUNGAMPALA, MANALOOR VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶10

3 MAHESH KUMAR, AGED 34 YEARS, S/O.MURALEEDHARAN, PUNNAVILA PUTHENVEEDU, PALLICHAL, NEMAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.LATHEESH SEBASTIAN

¶12

RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT:

¶13

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

¶14

2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER, NARUVAMOOD POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT - 682 031.

¶15

SRI.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶16

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.11.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

¶18

B.A. No. 3351 of 2019

¶19

Dated this the 13^th day of November, 2019

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

The subject crime in this case is Crime No.287/2019 of Naruvamood Police Station, which has been registered for offences punishable under Secs.294(b), 447, 324, 326, 354, 427, 308 & 34 of the IPC. The abovesaid crime has been registered on the basis of the FIS given by defacto complainant on 15.4.2019 at 12 noon in respect of the alleged incident which happened on 11.4.2019 at about 7.30 pm.

¶22

The learned Prosecutor would submit that the 2^nd petitioner (Ratheesh) has not been arrayed as an accused in the instant crime, and that therefore his plea for anticipatory bail is unnecessary. Originally 3 persons had been arrayed as accused. The police after investigation has additionally included accused No.4, who is the 3^rd petitioner herein. The 1^st petitioner herein has been arrayed as accused No.2. Accused No.1 has already been arrested, remanded and later let out on bail. The learned Prosecutor would point out that the identity of accused No.3 (Manikuttan) has not been confirmed as yet.

¶23

B.A. No. 3351 /2019

¶24

..3..

¶25

The prosecution case in short is that A1 and the defacto complainant are in inimical terms as A1 as now been residing along with the first wife of the defacto complainant. Later on 11.4.2019 at about 7.30 pm while the defacto complainant had came out of his house the accused persons had entered into the courtyard of the house and A1 had uttered abusive words and A1 had attempted to assault the defacto complainant with a wooden piece, which he evaded and one such assault landed on the left side of his head and he fallen down. While the defacto complainant was lying in the floor the 1^st petitioner (A2) had assaulted on the legs of the defacto complainant with a stick. When the wife of the defacto complainant had intervened, the 1^st petitioner (A2) had pushed her away and thereby the accused persons have committed the abovesaid offences.

¶26

It appears that the medical records would show that the defacto complainant has sustained loss of two of his teeth and lacerated wound on his scalp. It appears that the main over tacts in relation to the causing of those injuries are mainly directed against A1, who has already been arrested, remanded and let out on bail.

¶27

The counsel for the petitioner would point out that the

¶28

B.A. No. 3351 /2019

¶29

..4..

¶30

allegations raised against the 1^st petitioner and the 3^rd petitioner are not very serious and that this Court may grant anticipatory bail.

¶31

The learned Prosecutor has opposed the plea for anticipatory bail.

¶32

At the outset it has to be stated that as the 2^nd petitioner (Ratheesh) is not arrayed as accused in this crime, his plea for anticipatory bail is unnecessary. The main over tacts relating to causing of serious injuries are directed mainly as against A1, who has already been arrested, remanded and later let out on bail. Taking into account the facts of this case, this Court is inclined to take the view that the custodial interrogation of the 1^st & 3^rd petitioners is not necessary for effectuating smooth and proper conduct of investigation in the abovesaid crime. Accordingly it is ordered in the interest of justice that in the event of the 1^st & 3^rd petitioners being arrested by police in connection with the abovesaid crime, they shall be released on bail on their separately executing bond for Rs.40,000/- each and on their separately furnishing two solvent sureties for the like sum, both to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer concerned.

¶33

B.A. No. 3351 /2019

¶34

..5..

¶35

Further it is also ordered that the grant of bail will be

¶36

subject to following conditions:-

¶37

i. The 1^st & 3^rd petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer (I.O.) on every 2^nd and 4^th Saturdays, at any time between 9 am and 1 pm, for the next 3 months, and thereafter he will report before the I.O., as and when directed.

¶38

ii. The 1^st & 3^rd petitioners shall not involve in any criminal offences of similar nature.

¶39

iii. The 1^st & 3^rd petitioners shall fully co-operate with the investigation.

¶40

iv. The 1^st & 3^rd petitioners shall not influence witness or shall not tamper or attempt to tamper evidence in any manner, whatsoever.

¶41

If there is any violation of the abovesaid conditions by the 1^st & 3^rd petitioners, then the jurisdictional court concerned stand hereby empowered, to consider the plea for cancellation of bail at the appropriate time.

¶42

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

¶43

Sd/-

¶44

ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE

¶45

MMG

Ananthakrishnan, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ananthakrishnan, 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

Shaji Vs State of Kerala

Prasoon N. Vs State of Kerala

Tilvi Vs Thressia

Santhosh.M.K Vs a.S.Aruja

Suneer Chieripparamban Vs Rubeena

Kunnummal Saleem Vs Nasiya