Allowed

Sarath Soman v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC26 Mar 2019Bail Appl./708/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed anticipatory bail applications filed by accused persons alleged to have committed theft of a vehicle. The Court held that custodial interrogation was not necessary, no criminal antecedents existed, and a bond was imposed with surrender conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted on bond of Rs. 40,000 each with two sureties, reporting to IO, and prohibiting tampering.

Sarath Soman 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 B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

¶4

TUESDAY ,THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 5TH CHAITHRA, 1941

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 708 of 2019

¶6

CRIME NO. 90/2019 OF Velloor Police Station , Kottayam

¶7

PETITIONER/S:

¶8

1 SARATH SOMAN, AGED 28 YEARS S/O.SOMAN.C.D., CHALAMKUZHIYIL HOUSE, KADAYIRUPPU P.O., KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2 ELDHO SUNNY, AGED 27 YEARS S/O.SUNNY.P.V., PUTHENPURAKKAL HOUSE, KADYIRUPPU P.O., KOLENCHERY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.G.HARIHARAN SRI.PRAVEEN.H.

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

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

¶11

2 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VELLOOR POLICE STATION, VELLOOR - 686 501.

¶12

3 MR.LAJITH K.S, S/O SANTHOSH, KIYYALIL HOUSE, THIRUVANIYOOR, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682308. (ADDL.R3 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 20/02/2019 IN CRL.MA.01/2019)

¶13

BY ADV. SRI.K.T.SAJU

¶14

OTHER PRESENT:

¶15

SRI.C.S.HRITHWIK,PP.SMT.V.SREEJA,PP

¶16

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26.03.2019, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..717/2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

Bail Appl..Nos. 708 and 717 of 2019

¶18

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶19

PRESENT

¶20

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

¶21

TUESDAY ,THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 5TH CHAITHRA, 1941

¶22

Bail Appl..No. 717 of 2019

¶23

CRIME NO. 90/2019 OF Velloor Police Station , Kottayam

¶24

PETITIONER/S:

¶25

AJAS.K.H AGED 26 YEARS S/O. HYDROSE, KUMMANATTUPUTHENPURAYIL HOUSE, PATTIMATTOM P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT BY ADVS. SRI.G.HARIHARAN SRI.PRAVEEN.H.

¶26

RESPONDENT/S:

¶27

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

¶28

2 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE VELLOOR POLICE STATION, VELLOOR-686 501

¶29

3 LAJITH.K.S S/O.SANTHOSH K.K, AGED 24 YEARS, KEEYALIL HOUSE, THIRUVANIYOOR P.O, THIRUVANIYOOR, ERNAKULAM - 682 308.(ADDL.R3 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 20/02/2019 IN CRL.MA.01/2019)

¶30

BY ADV. SRI.K.T.SAJU

¶31

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26.03.2019, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..708/2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶32

Bail Appl..Nos. 708 and 717 of 2019

¶33

-3-

¶34

O R D E R

¶35

The petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 3 in Crime No.

¶36

90 of 2019 of Velloor police station registered for the offence punishable under Section 379 IPC.

¶37

The prosecution allegation is that during the night on 25.1.2019, the vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL-17-K/9293 belonging to the de-facto complainant was stolen by somebody from the place where it was parked.

¶38

The petitioners have filed this application praying

¶39

for the relief under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶40

Heard.

¶41

It has been submitted by the learned Public

¶42

Prosecutor that the petitioners are not involved in any other

¶43

offence. It is admitted that there is dispute with regard to

¶44

Bail Appl..Nos. 708 and 717 of 2019

¶45

-4-

¶46

the sale of the above said vehicle between the petitioners on one side and the def-facto complainant, who is the third respondent herein, on the other side. It is alleged by the defacto complainant that the vehicle was handed over to the de-facto complainant along with the documents as per an agreement for sale and thereafter, the said vehicle was taken away from the possession of the de-facto complainant without his consent. It appears that the vehicle is still in the name of the first petitioner in B.A. No.708 of 2019. The learned counsel for the de-facto complainant has submitted that all the documents including the RC book and the agreement for sale are with the de-facto complainant. Therefore, no document is to be recovered from the petitioners. Having gone through the relevant inputs, I am of the view that the custodial interrogation of the

¶47

Bail Appl..Nos. 708 and 717 of 2019

¶48

-5-

¶49

petitioners is not necessary in this case. That apart, the petitioners have no criminal antecedent. In the said circumstances, an order under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in favour of the petitioners will be justified in this case.

¶50

In the result, these applications stand allowed and respondent Nos.1 and 2 are directed to release the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.90 of 2019 of Velloor police station, on condition of each of the petitioners executing a bond for Rs.40,000/-

¶51

(Rupees forty thousand only) each, with two solvent sureties each, each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the 2^nd respondent, before whom the petitioners shall surrender within ten days, if not arrested in the meantime and subject to the following further conditions:

¶52

Bail Appl..Nos. 708 and 717 of 2019

¶53

-6-

¶54

(i) The petitioners shall report before the Investigating Officer on every Monday between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m. for one month and thereafter, as and when required by the Investigating Officer for interrogation.

¶55

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

¶56

(iii) The petitioners shall not get involved in any other offence during the pendency of the above case.

¶57

¶58

B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE .

¶59

dl/26.3

Sarath Soman v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarath Soman 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

Imthiyas, Vs State of Kerala

Ravi, Vs State of Kerala

Ganji.M.a., Vs the State of Kerala

Ajas.K.H Vs State of Kerala

Vinod Vs State of Kerala

Gopakumar, Vs State of Kerala