Allowed

Ajeesh v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC11 Oct 2019Bail Appl./6878/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of a bail application filed by an accused inIPC arising from an alleged incidence. The court granted bail subject to execution of a bond and furnishing of sureties, making it clear that custodial interrogation would not be necessary for the effective investigation of the charges.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner shall be released on bail on executing a bond of Rs.40,000 and furnishing two solvent sureties for the like sum.

Ajeesh 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

FRIDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 19TH ASWINA, 1941

¶5

Bail Appl..No.6878 OF 2019

¶6

CRIME NO.525/2019 OF Wadakkancherry Police Station , Palakkad

¶7

PETITIONER/S:

¶8

AJEESH

¶9

AGED 29 YEARS S/O. GOPALAN, MEKKONATH VEETTIL, ULLKKUNNAPADAM, THEKKEPOTTA, PUTHUKKODE, ALATHUR, PALAKKAD.

¶10

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

¶11

RESPONDENT/S:

¶12

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

¶13

OTHER PRESENT:

¶14

SRI.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11.10.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

B.A.No.6878/2019

¶17

¶18

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

¶19

B.A.No.6878 of 2019

¶20

Dated this the 11^th day of October, 2019

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The petitioner has been arrayed as the accused No.2 among the 5 accused in the instant Crime No.525/2019 of Vadakkencherry Police Station, Palakkad, which has been registered for offences punishable under Secs.143, 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 324 and 427 of the IPC on the basis of the First Information Statement given by the defacto complainant on 19.8.2019 at about 1.15 a.m. in respect of the alleged incident which had happened on 18.8.2019 at about 7.10 p.m. The Police, after investigation, later, has subsequently added offence as per Section 354 of the IPC.

¶23

The prosecution case in short is that the petitioner (A2) had animosity against the defacto complainant in as much as the latter had questioned the petitioner for having misbehaved with the defacto complainant's wife and that out of that enmity, A2 and 4 others had assaulted the defacto complainant with wooden sticks and that the defacto complainant suffered beating on several parts of his body. Thereby, he has committed the above said offences.

¶24

According to the petitioner, the above said allegations are false and that, as a matter of fact, the defacto complainant's wife had come in a motor cycle in violation of the traffic rules, which was questioned by the

¶25

B.A.No.6878/2019

¶26

¶27

petitioner and enraged at that, the defacto complainant herein had assaulted the petitioner on the same day for which the petitioner has given a complaint, in which no action has been taken by the Police as the defacto complainant is a Police man. That it is only when the petitioner had given the complaint that at the instigation of the defacto complainant, who is a Police man, that the investigating officer has added the offence as per Sect.354 of the IPC in the instant crime against the petitioner. That none of the allegations in the present crime as made out in the FI Statemetn will make out a case under Section 354 of the IPC and the same has been included only to implicate the petitioner falsely in a non-bailable offence as all the other offences originally included in the impugned crime are bailable offences.

¶28

It is now submitted by Sri. Johnson Varikkappallil, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that this Court had already granted anticipatory bail to A1 in the very same crime as per Anneuxre-A order dated 4.9.2019 in B.A.No.6363/2019 filed by A1 herein.

¶29

Taking note of the above said facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is persuaded to take the view that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner (A2) may not be necessary for effectuating smooth and fair conduct of the investigation in this crime. Accordingly, it is ordered in the event of the petitioner being arrested in relation to the above said crime, then he shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for Rs.40,000/- (Forty thousand only) and on his furnishing two solvent sureties for the like sum both to the satisfaction of the Investigating

¶30

B.A.No.6878/2019

¶31

¶32

Officer concerned. However, the grant of bail will be subject to the following conditions:

¶33

(i) The petitioner shall not involve in any criminal offences of similar nature.

¶34

(ii) The petitioner shall fully co-operate with the investigation.

¶35

(iii) The petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer as and when required in that connection.

¶36

(iv) The petitioner shall not influence witness or shall not tamper or attempt to tamper evidence in any manner, whatsoever.

¶37

If there is any violation of the abovesaid conditions by the petitioner, then the jurisdictional court concerned will stand hereby empowered to consider the plea for cancellation of bail at the appropriate time.

¶38

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

¶39

Sd/-

¶40

ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE.

¶41

acd

Ajeesh v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajeesh 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

Ambikakumari Vs State of Kerala

Rasin Das Vs State of Kerala

Akhil S., Vs the State of Kerala

Sona Noushad Vs State of Kerala

Unnikrishna Pillai Vs State of Kerala

Shaji, Vs State of Kerala