Allowed

Rajith v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC22 Oct 2019Bail Appl./6923/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed an application for anticipatory bail, holding that custodial interrogation was not necessary for effective investigation. The applicant was ordered to appear for interrogation and may be released on bail if arrested.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted; applicant to appear for interrogation within ten days; made available for bail on Rs.50,000 bond with sureties if arrested.

Rajith 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 RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 30TH ASWINA, 1941

¶5

Bail Appl..No.6923 OF 2019

¶6

CRIME NO.569/2019 OF Palode Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

RAJITH

¶9

AGED 23 YEARS S/O.RABI, KARUNYABHAVAN, BLOCK NO.11, KARIMANCODE P.O., PALODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶10

BY ADVS. SRI.G.RANJU MOHAN SMT.M.SANTHI (K/868/2011)

¶11

RESPONDENT:

¶12

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

¶13

OTHER PRESENT:

¶14

SRI RAMESH CHAND PP

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.10.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

Bail Appl..No.6923 OF 2019

¶17

¶18

ORDER

¶19

This application is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶20

The applicant herein is the accused in Crime No.569 of 2019 of the Palode Police Station registered under Sections 341, 294(b) and 326 of the IPC.

¶21

The aforesaid crime was registered on 19.6.2019, based on information furnished by one Gireesh. It is alleged that on 19.6.2019 at about 11.45 a.m., while the informant was traveling with his friend on a bike, the applicant herein intercepted him and made an attempt to attack the informant with an iron rod. The informant managed to wrest the weapon from the hands of the applicant. Immediately thereafter, the applicant is alleged to have taken a stone from the ground and inflicted an injury on his nose causing a nasal bone fracture.

¶22

It is submitted by the learned counsel that there is no truth in the allegation. According to the learned counsel, the informant is the accused in Crime No. 757 of 2015 registered at the instance of the applicant. In the said case, the allegation was that the applicant was assaulted with a torch resulting in loss of tooth. He would further contend that annexure-A2 crime was registered on 24.9.2016 against the siblings of the informant at the instance of the father of the applicant herein. He would urge that there arose a wordy altercation between the

¶23

Bail Appl..No.6923 OF 2019

¶24

¶25

parties pursuant to which, minor injuries were suffered by the victim consequent to a fall.

¶26

Heard the learned Public Prosecutor, who strenuously opposed the prayer.

¶27

I have considered the submissions advanced and have gone through the case diary. From the case records, it appears that the weapon of offence which is a stone, has already been seized. No other crimes are reported against the applicant. There appears to be cases and counter cases against both the parties. In the facts and circumstances, the custodial interrogation of the applicant does not appear to be necessary for an effective investigation in the instant case.

¶28

In the result, this application will stand allowed. The applicant shall appear before the Investigating Officer within ten days from today and shall undergo interrogation. Thereafter, if he is proposed to be arrested, he shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum. The above order shall be subject to the following conditions:

¶29

i) The applicant shall co-operate with the investigation and shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Saturdays between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m., for two months or till final report is filed, whichever is earlier.

¶30

ii) He shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/ her from disclosing such facts to the court or to

¶31

Bail Appl..No.6923 OF 2019

¶32

¶33

any police officer.

¶34

iii) He shall not commit any similar offence while on bail.

¶35

In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the jurisdictional Court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation, if any, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law.

¶36

SD/-

¶37

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., JUDGE

¶38

Ps/22/10/2019

¶39

/TRUE COPY/

¶40

P.S. To Judge

Rajith v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajith 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

Haneesha Noufal, Vs State of Kerala

Siddhik Pallath Vs State of Kerala

Unnikrishnan Vs the State of Kerala

Manu Unnikrishnan, Vs State of Kerala

M.Vasantha Vs State of Kerala

V.Shaji Vs State of Kerala