Allowed

Bineesh Kumar.B v. the Inspector of Police

Kerala HC7 Aug 2020Bail Appl./3028/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A single-judge bench granted anticipatory bail to two applicant brothers accused in a riot and assault case under IPC Section 149 and related offences, directing pre-arrest surrender to investigating officials and release upon recovery of weapons.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; applicants to surrender within two weeks; release on bail after interrogation and recovery of weapons upon execution of bond with sureties.

Bineesh Kumar.B Vs the Inspector of Police — Cheating and Forgery | 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.3028 OF 2020

¶6

CRIME NO.303/2020 OF Pandalam Police Station, Pathanamthitta

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

1 BINEESH KUMAR.B AGED 29 YEARS

¶9

S/O.BALAKRISHNAN, CHANGETHU KIZHAKKETHIL VEEDU, KUDASSANADU, P.O., POOZHIKKADU MURI, KURAMPALA VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶10

2 BIJESH KUMAR B., AGED 20 YEARS S/O.BALAKRISHNAN, CHANGETHU KIZHAKKETHIL VEEDU, KUDASSANADU, P.O.POOZHIKKADU MURI, KURAMPALA VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.SUNIL JACOB JOSE

¶12

RESPONDENTS:

¶13

1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE PANDALAM POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶14

2 STATE OF KERALA, (RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-682031.)

¶15

SRI.C.N.PRABHAKARAN SR PP

¶16

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.08.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

Bail Appl..No.3028 OF 2020

¶18

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Dated this the 7th day of August 2020

¶21

This is an application filed under Section

¶22

438 of Cr.P.C seeking anticipatory bail.

¶23

The applicants are brothers who are accused in Crime No.303/2020 of Pandalam Police Station, Pathanamthitta, along with four other persons for having allegedly committed offences punishable

¶24

under Sections 143, 147, 148, 294(b), 323, 324, 308 and 427 r/w Section 149 of the IPC.

¶25

The prosecution case in brief is that, on 12.03.2020 at about 8.15 p.m, the applicants along

¶26

with the other accused who are members of an

¶27

unlawful assembly, in prosecution of the common object, gathered in front of a shop at Varadamma and hurled abuses at the defacto complainant. When

¶28

the defacto complainant questioned their

¶29

activities they were provoked and attacked the

¶30

defacto complainant on his head with hands and

¶31

Bail Appl..No.3028 OF 2020

¶32

also caused injuries to him with the handle of a

¶33

knife and the 4^th accused allegedly used sword stick and attempted to chop the neck of the

¶34

defacto complainant who evaded the attempt and sustained an injury on his left hand. The 5^th accused had allegedly inflicted a blow on the stomach of the defacto complainant with hands. During the process, the defacto complainant lost his mobile phone worth Rs.12,000/- and cash Rs.18,000/- and thus, the applicants also

¶35

committed mischief.

¶36

The applicants state that they are innocent

¶37

and the allegations are false and frivolous, and that the case has been registered because of the intra party politics between the defacto complainant and the applicants. It is submitted that the applicants do not have any criminal antecedents, they may not be incarcerated during these pandemic times, and hence, the applicants

¶38

Bail Appl..No.3028 OF 2020

¶39

¶40

seek a pre-arrest bail. The anticipatory bail

¶41

application filed by them before the Sessions Court, Pathanamthitta was however dismissed.

¶42

Therefore, they seek indulgence of this Court.

¶43

Heard the learned counsel for the

¶44

applicants and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶45

The learned Public Prosecutor submits that,

¶46

the weapon allegedly used by the accused are yet to be recovered, and for that purpose custodial interrogation of the applicants would be necessary

¶47

and hence, they may not be granted a pre-arrest bail.

¶48

Considering the fact that the applicants do

¶49

not have any criminal antecedents, and that there is no possibility of their absconding or not cooperating with the investigation, I do not find any reasons to confine them in judicial custody. Even though dangerous weapons like knife and sword sticks were used, none of the injuries sustained

¶50

¶51

Bail Appl..No.3028 OF 2020

¶52

by the defacto complainant seem to have been

¶53

caused with those weapons, since he has not sustained any incised wound. The injuries are contusions and aberrations and therefore, I find that the applicants may co-operate with the investigation by appearing before the

¶54

investigating officer. The application is

¶55

therefore allowed.

¶56

Hence, the applicants are directed to

¶57

surrender before the investigating officer within two weeks, and after interrogation and recovery if any, 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 like amount to the satisfaction of the investigating officer and on the following conditions;

¶58

i. They shall not tamper with evidence,

¶59

influence or intimidate witnesses.

¶60

Bail Appl..No.3028 OF 2020

¶61

ii. They shall appear before the

¶62

investigating officer as and when called for.

¶63

iii. They shall not get involved in similar offences during the bail period.

¶64

In the event of violating the bail conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to apply for cancellation of bail before the jurisdictional

court.

Sd/-

ASHOK MENON

JUDGE

spk

Bineesh Kumar.B v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bineesh Kumar.B v. the Inspector of Police

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

Prasanth Vs State of Kerala

Muhammad Bilal Vs State of Kerala