Allowed

Sreesanth T.S. v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC1 Jul 2020Bail Appl./1695/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed an anticipatory bail application filed by three accused persons involved in an assault case. The court held that despite the failure to recover weapons, the injuries were simple and the petitioners had no criminal record.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted; directed to surrender within two weeks and execute bond for Rs.50,000/- each with two solvent sureties each.

Sreesanth T.S. Vs the State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 01ST DAY OF JULY 2020 / 10TH ASHADHA, 1942

¶5

Bail Appl..No.1695 OF 2020

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMC 241/2020 DATED 26-02-2020 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT,KOZHIKODE

¶7

CRIME NO.163/2020 OF Vadakara Police Station , Kozhikode

¶8

PETITIONER/A1 TO A3:

¶9

1 SREESANTH T.S. AGED 30 YEARS

¶10

S/O.SREEDHARAN, THAIVACHA PARAMBATH, THIRUVALLOOR POST, VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE-673541

¶11

2 NAVEEN DEV N.D AGED 33 YEARS S/O.NARAYANAN, VALIYAVALAPPIL, SRUTHILAYAM HOUSE, THODANNOOR POST, VATAKARA-673541

¶12

3 BAVIN,

¶13

AGED 30 YEARS S/O.BALAKRISHNAN, KUZHICHAL HOUSE, THODANNOOR POST, VATAKARA-673541

¶14

BY ADV. SRI.C.R.SIVAKUMAR

¶15

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶16

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

¶17

OTHER PRESENT:

¶18

SRI.AMJAD ALI. SR PP

¶19

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.07.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

BA 1695 /20

O R D E R

Dated this the 1st day of July 2020

¶24

This is a petition seeking anticipatory bail filed under Section 438 Cr.PC.

¶25

Petitioners are accused 1 to 3 in Crime No.163/2020 of Vatakara Police Station for having allegedly committed offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 308 and 506(ii) read with Section 34 IPC.

¶26

The prosecution case in brief is that on 6.2.2020 at about 23 hours near the parking ground of Kizhakkedathu temple the petitioners along with the fourth accused, in furtherance of common intention wrongfully restrained the defacto complainant, threatened him with dangerous weapons

¶27

and voluntarily caused hurt to him by hitting and kicking him. The first accused hit the defacto complainant with an iron rod on his back, and again tried to hit him on the head, which was evaded by the defacto complainant. Had the iron rod hit his

¶28

¶29

BA 1695 /20

¶30

head, it could have proved fatal, and thus the petitioners attempted to commit culpable homicide also. They are not having any criminal antecedents. Therefore, they seek prearrest bail.

¶31

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶32

The application has been opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor mainly on the ground that recovery of the weapons has not been completed. It is however admitted that the petitioners do not have any criminal antecedents. Even though the petitioners were wielding certain weapons, there is no allegation that any injury was caused to the defacto complainant with the weapons. The injuries sustained are simple in nature and not life threatening. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled to pre-arrest bail as prayed for.

¶33

In the result, the Bail Application is allowed and the petitioners are directed to surrender before the investigating officer within two weeks and after interrogation, in the event of

¶34

¶35

BA 1695 /20

¶36

their being arrested, recovery shall be made and 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 like amount to the satisfaction of the investigating officer, on the following conditions:

¶37

(i) They shall appear before the investigating

¶38

officer as and when called for and co-operate with the investigation.

¶39

(ii) They shall not intimidate or influence the

¶40

witnesses.

¶41

(iii) They shall not get involved in any similar offence during the currency of the bail.

¶42

In case of breach of any of the above bail conditions, the prosecution is at liberty to approach the jurisdictional court for cancellation of the bail.

¶43

Sd/- ASHOK MENON JUDGE

¶44

Sreesanth T.S. v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sreesanth T.S. v. the 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

George Mathew Vs State of Kerala

Aneesh @ Kunju Vs the Station House Officer

Biju P.Nair Vs State of Kerala

Bindhu Vs State of Kerala

Bijina Anna Mathew Vs State of Kerala

P.Biju Vs State of Kerala