Allowed

Prejith Kumar. P.K v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC3 Aug 2020Bail Appl./3286/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed an application for anticipatory bail filed by an accused charged with offences under Sections 307, 143, 147, 148, and 326 of the IPC. The court directed surrender within two weeks for investigation and release on bail subject to conditions.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; applicant directed to surrender within two weeks for interrogation and to execute a bond for Rs.50,000 with two sureties.

Prejith Kumar. P.K Vs State of Kerala — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON

¶4

MONDAY, THE 03RD DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 12TH SRAVANA, 1942

¶5

Bail Appl..No.3286 OF 2020

¶6

CRIME NO.724/2020 OF Chengannoor Police Station , Alappuzha

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

PREJITH KUMAR P.K., AGED 31 YEARS, S/O LATE PRASANNAN, KOMODIYIL, PENNUKKARA NORTH MURI, POOMALA P.O. ALA VILLAGE, CHENGANNUR TALUK 689 520.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.N.ASHOK KUMAR

¶10

RESPONDENT/STATE:

¶11

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

¶12

BY SRI.C.N.PRABHAKARAN SR PP

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.08.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

Bail Appl..No.3286 OF 2020

¶15

¶16

ORDER

¶17

Dated this the 3^rd day of August 2020

¶18

Application for anticipatory bail filed under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code.

¶19

The applicant was originally arraigned as the 2^nd accused in Crime No. 724/2020 of Chengannur Police station, Alappuzha for having allegedly committed offences punishable under Sections 143,147,148 and 307 read with Section 149 of the I.P.C. Subsequently offences under Section 326 also has been added and the applicant is now arrayed as the 4^th accused along with 6 identified and other identifiable persons.

¶20

The prosecution case in brief is that, on

¶21

20-03-2020 at about 4.00 p.m., the applicant along with the other accused, were members of an unlawful assembly. In prosecution of the common object of the said unlawful assembly, the accused armed with deadly weapons like iron rods, sticks, beer bottles etc., attempted to murder Rajeev, the son of the defacto complainant. He was hit on the head with dangerous weapons like iron rod and sticks and a depressed fracture was caused to his frontal bone with underlying contusion. He also sustained an optic nerve injury on his left

¶22

¶23

Bail Appl..No.3286 OF 2020

¶24

eye for which surgery was performed.

¶25

The crime was registered. Accused 1,2,3 and 6 were already arrested. Recovery of weapons is complete. The applicant states that he has no criminal antecedents. There is no specific overt act attributed to him, apart from being a member of the unlawful assembly and also that his motor cycle was used for the purpose of committing the crime.

¶26

The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the applicant will have to be interrogated for the purpose of recovery of the motor cycle. However, it is admitted that he does not have any criminal antecedents and the overt act attributed to him is also minimal. In view of the recovery of the weapons on arrest of the accused referred to above, I find no reason to see that the applicant has to be subjected to any custodial interrogation in this case. There is also no possibility of his not appearing for investigation or trial.

¶27

I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicant and also the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶28

In the result, the application is allowed and the applicant is hereby directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer within two weeks, and after interrogation and recovery of the motor cycle which was allegedly used by

¶29

¶30

Bail Appl..No.3286 OF 2020

¶31

him, he shall be released on bail on execution of bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties, for the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer, on the following conditions:-

¶32

(i) He shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called for.

¶33

(ii) He shall not interfere with the investigation, intimidate or influence witnesses.

¶34

(iii) He shall surrender his passport before the Investigating Officer and if he does not have one, file an affidavit to that effect which shall be produced before the jurisdictional court.

¶35

(iv) He shall not get involved in any similar crime during the bail period.

¶36

In case of breach of any of the bail conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to apply for cancellation of bail before the jurisdictional Court.

¶37

Sd/ASHOK MENON JUDGE

¶38

SSK/03/08

Prejith Kumar. P.K v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prejith Kumar. P.K 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

Shanu Shajilal Vs State of Kerala

Salamu Vs State of Kerala

Sumesh Vs State of Kerala

Rajesh M.V Vs the State of Kerala

Anoop Vs State of Kerala

Ashok Kumar R.S., Vs State of Kerala