Allowed

Prasanth v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC7 Aug 2020Bail Appl./1342/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed anticipatory bail to three accused (2, 4, and 5) in a case involving affray and rioting charges, noting that bail for others was already granted. The order specifies surrender, interrogation, and appropriate bond conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail allowed for accused 2, 4, and 5 upon execution of bond of Rs.50,000 with sureties and compliance with directives to surrender and cooperate.

Prasanth Vs State of Kerala — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 16TH SRAVANA, 1942

¶5

Bail Appl.No.1088 OF 2020

¶6

CRIME NO.113/2020 OF Kottarakkara Police Station , Kollam

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1, 5 & 7:

¶8

1 AJITH @ PATHROSE AGED 24 YEARS, CHACKO KOCHUVILA, INCHAKKADU, MAILOM.P.O, KOTTARACKARA-691560.

¶9

2 LENIN KUMAR, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.VIDHYADHARAN NEDUMON MELATHIL, MAILOM PO, KOTTARACKARA-691560.

¶10

3 JOBIN JOHN, AGED 20 YEARS, S/O.JOHN KARAMUKALIL VEEDU, INCHAKKADU, MAILOM PO, KOTTARACKARA-691560.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.M.RAJESH

¶12

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS:

¶13

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

¶14

2 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE KOTTARACKARA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DIST-691506.

¶15

OTHER PRESENT:

¶16

SRI.C.N.PRABHAKARAN SR PP

¶17

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.08.2020, ALONG WITH Bail Appl.1342/2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

B.A.Nos.1088 & 1342 of 2020

¶19

-2-

¶20

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶21

PRESENT

¶22

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON

¶23

FRIDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 16TH SRAVANA, 1942

¶24

Bail Appl.No.1342 OF 2020

¶25

CRIME NO.113/2020 OF Kottarakkara Police Station , Kollam

¶26

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 2 & 4:

¶27

1 PRASANTH, AGED 23 YEARS, S/O.SHERLY.K.S., KOCHUVILA PADINJATTATHIL VEEDU, INCHAKKADU, MYLOM.P.O., KOTTARAKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶28

2 VYSHAKH, AGED 21 YEARS, S/O.SATHYAN, SIKHA BHAVAN, INCHAKKADU, MYLOM.P.O., KOTTARAKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶29

BY ADVS. SRI.K.V.ANIL KUMAR SMT.RADHIKA S.ANIL

¶30

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶31

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

¶32

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.08.2020, ALONG WITH Bail Appl.1088/2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶33

B.A.Nos.1088 & 1342 of 2020

¶34

-3-

¶35

COMMON ORDER

¶36

[ Bail Appl.1088/2020, Bail Appl.1342/2020 ] Dated this the 7th day of August 2020

¶37

Applications for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.

¶38

The applicants in B.A.No.1088/2020 are accused 1, 5 and 7; while the applicants in B.A.No.1342/2020 are accused 2 and 4 in Crime No.113/2020 of

¶39

Kottarakkara Police Station, for having allegedly committed the offences punishable under Sections 143,

¶40

147, 148, 294(b), 324, 326 and 308 read with Section

¶41

149 of I.P.C. Accused 1 and 7 have already been

¶42

arrested, and therefore, this anticipatory bail as

¶43

against them has become infructuous and this Court is

¶44

concerned only with the applications filed by accused 2, 4 and 5.

¶45

The prosecution case, in brief, is that on

¶46

11.01.2020 at about 21.30 hours, at Panchivila

¶47

Junction, the applicants along with other accused were

¶48

members of an unlawful assembly, the common object of

¶49

B.A.Nos.1088 & 1342 of 2020

¶50

-4-

¶51

which was to cause hurt to the defacto complainant and

¶52

his son. In prosecution of the said common object of the said unlawful assembly, they committed riot armed with deadly weapons,like iron rod and some unidentified weapon, and attacked the defacto complainant and his son, as a result of which, two teeth of the defacto complainant’s son got lost. He was hit with an iron rod by the 1st accused, and the other accused too assaulted

¶53

them. It is stated that there is also a counter-case against the defacto complainant and others for having attacked some of the accused herein and Crime

¶54

No.112/2020 has been registered at the same Police Station against them, for almost similar offences, except for the offence under Section 326 of I.P.C. It is stated that in a scuffle between two groups certain injuries were sustained by either of them. However, no

¶55

serious injuries have been sustained to anyone in the said scuffle.

¶56

Heard the learned Counsel for the applicants

¶57

and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶58

The learned Public Prosecutor vehemently

¶59

B.A.Nos.1088 & 1342 of 2020

¶60

-5-

¶61

opposes the applications for bail on the ground that

¶62

with dangerous weapons like an iron rod has been used by one of the accused to cause injury to the son of the defacto complainant. It is also pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor that the 2nd accused has some

¶63

criminal antecedents. There are no other criminal antecedents against others. Accused 1, 3 and 7 have already been arrested and they have been granted regular bail. It is further submitted that the unidentified weapon allegedly used by the 2nd accused is yet to be recovered. Considering the fact that the

¶64

1st accused, who was the main perpetrator of having

¶65

caused grievous hurt to the son of the defacto complainant by hitting with an iron rod, has already been arrested and granted bail, I find no reason to

¶66

decline bail to the rest of the accused. There is no possibility of their absconding and undertake to cooperate with the investigation.

¶67

In the result, the applications for anticipatory

¶68

bail are allowed with regard to the applicants, except applicants 1 and 7, and they are directed to surrender

¶69

B.A.Nos.1088 & 1342 of 2020

¶70

-6-

¶71

before the Investigating Officer within two weeks.

¶72

After interrogation and recovery, in the event of their being arrested, they shall be released on bail on execution of bond for Rs.50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand only) each, with two solvent sureties each, for the

¶73

like amount to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer, and on the following conditions:

¶74

(i) They shall appear before the Investigating Officer

¶75

as and when called and shall cooperate with the investigation;

¶76

(ii) They shall not influence or intimidate witnesses or tamper with evidence; and

¶77

(iii)During the bail period, they shall not get

¶78

involved in any similar offences.

¶79

In case of breach of the bail conditions, the

¶80

prosecution shall be at liberty to apply for cancellation of the bail before the jurisdictional

¶81

court.

¶82

Sd/-

¶83

ASHOK MENON JUDGE

¶84

dkr

Prasanth v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prasanth 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

Fahad Vs State of Kerala

Anoop M.R. Vs State of Kerala

Visakh, Vs State of Kerala

Ajith @ Pathrose Vs State of Kerala

Bineesh Kumar.B Vs the Inspector of Police

Muhammad Bilal Vs State of Kerala