Partly allowed

Venkatesh v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC9 Jul 2019Bail Appl./4789/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court considered anticipatory bail applications by two accused facing charges of hurt and public provocation. Bail allowed for the second petitioner without weapon but refused for the first who wielded a sword. Second petitioner released on bond with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Second petitioner released on bond of Rs. 30,000 with two sureties and reporting conditions; first petitioner denied anticipatory bail.

Venkatesh 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 B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF JULY 2019 / 18TH ASHADHA, 1941

¶5

Bail Appl.No.4789 of 2019

¶6

CRIME NO.1047/2019 OF Kollam East Police Station, Kollam

PETITIONER/S:

1 VENKATESH

AGED 23 YEARS

S/O RAJAN PUTHUVAR PURAIDAM, THIRUVATHIRA NAGAR-16,MUNDAYKKAL WEST, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN691010

¶11

2 AKHIL, AGED 24 YEARS S/O SURESH, CANAL PURAIDAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.M.T.SURESHKUMAR

¶13

RESPONDENT/S:

¶14

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

¶15

OTHER PRESENT:

¶16

SMT.V.SREEJA,PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶17

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.07.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

Bail Appl.No.4789 of 2019

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The petitioners are accused Nos. 1 and 3 in Crime No. 1047 of 2019 of Kollam East Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 294 (b), 324 and 308 read with Section 34 IPC.

¶21

The petitioners have filed this application under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶22

Heard.

¶23

The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the petitioners have no criminal antecedent.

¶24

It appears that the first petitioner used a sword to inflict injury on the injured. However, the 2nd petitioner did not use any weapon to attack the injured. Therefore, no recovery is to be effected from the 2nd petitioner. That apart, there is no criminal antecedent

¶25

Bail Appl.No.4789 of 2019

¶26

against the 2nd petitioner. In the said circumstances, an order under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in favour of the 2 nd petitioner will be justified in this case. However, the first petitioner used a sword to inflict injuries on the injured. The recovery is to be effected from the first petitioner. Therefore, the custodial interrogation of the first petitioner is necessary for the progress of investigation of the case. In the said circumstances, an order Section 438 Cr.P.C. in favour of the first petitioner will not be justified in this Case.

¶27

In the result, this application stands dismissed as regards the first petitioner and allowed as regards the second petitioner and the respondent is directed to release the second petitioner on bail, in the event of his arrest in the above said crime, on condition of the second petitioner executing a bond for Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand only) with two solvent sureties, each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer concerned, before whom the second petitioner shall surrender within ten days, if not arrested in the meantime, and subject to the following further conditions:-

¶28

Bail Appl.No.4789 of 2019

¶29

(i) The second petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer on every Saturday between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m. for three months and thereafter, as and when required by the investigating officer for interrogation.

¶30

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

¶31

(iii) The second petitioner shall not get involved in any offence during the pendency of this case.

¶32

Dated this the 9^th day of July, 2019.

¶33

Sd/-B.Sudheendra Kumar, Judge

¶34

ani/

¶35

/true copy/

Venkatesh v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Venkatesh 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

Sivan K. Vs State of Kerala

Raju @ Negro Raju Vs State of Kerala

Reji Vs State of Kerala

Saju Bin Salim, Vs State of Kerala

Thomas Vs State of Kerala

Vipin Mohan Vs State of Kerala