Allowed

Praful v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC17 Oct 2019Bail Appl./7018/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bail application by Praful, the 5th accused added later to a criminal case, was allowed. The court held that since the allegations were primarily against the first three accused and no serious injuries were sustained, the petitioner did not require custodial interrogation. Bail was granted subject to specific conditions including interrogation, attendance, and surrendering to police if arrest

What did the court decide?

The application for anticipate bail on Rs 50000 and two solvents each for like sum was allowed by the court subject to certain conditions.

Praful 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 RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 25TH ASWINA, 1941

¶5

Bail Appl..No.7018 OF 2019

¶6

CRIME NO.2416/2019 OF KAYAMKULAM POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.5:

¶8

PRAFUL, AGED 20 YEARS S/O.PRAKASH, KOIYIKKALATHU VADAKKATHIL, CHIRAKKADAVAM MURI, KAYAMKULAM VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN-690501

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.M.G.SREEJITH

¶10

RESPONDENT/S:

¶11

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SHO, KAYAMKULAM POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682031

¶12

OTHER PRESENT:

¶13

SRI. B. JAYASURYA SR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.10.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

BA.7018/19

ORDER

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

¶19

Crime No.2416 of 2019 of the Kayamkulam Police Station was registered on 11.09.2019 under Sections 452, 324, 294(b), 427 r/w. Section 34 of the IPC based on information furnished by one Abhilash. In the FIR, three identifiable persons are stated to be involved. The allegation is that on 11.09.2019 at 6 am, the accused Nos.1 to 3 were trespassed into his residential home and attacked him with weapons. It is also alleged that the accused committed mischief and caused loss to the tune of Rs.25,000/-.

¶20

In the course of proceedings, an additional statement was

¶21

recorded and the applicant herein was roped in as the 5^th accused. Apprehending arrest and detention, the applicant is before this Court.

¶22

The learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that the involvement of any other person other than accused Nos.1 to 3 was not stated when the information was originally furnished. He asserts that the applicant is innocent.

¶23

The learned Senior Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer.

¶24

I have considered the submissions advanced and have gone

¶25

through the materials on record. From the wound certificate of the de facto complainant, it does not appear that any serious injuries have been sustained.

¶26

BA.7018/19

¶27

¶28

The applicant was arrayed as an accused at a later stage and the allegations are primarily against the accused Nos. 1 to 3. In that view of the matter, his custodial interrogation does not appear to be necessary for an effective investigation in the instant case.

¶29

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:

¶30

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.

¶31

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 any police officer.

¶32

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

¶33

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.

¶34

Sd/-

¶35

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., Judge

¶36

krj

Praful v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Praful 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

Harpreet Kaur Anand Vs Mathew Joseph

Joseph.P.J Vs the State of Kerala

Rajesh Vs State of Kerala

Pramod Vs State of Kerala

Preman Vs State of Kerala

Sirajudeen Vs State of Kerala