Allowed

Sanil Kumar v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC20 Aug 2020Bail Appl./4048/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court considered a bail application filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C seeking anticipatory bail for two accused persons alleged to have committed offences under Sections 452, 506 and 427 IPC read with Section 34. The Court, noting the first accused's antecedents and the pandemic situation, allowed the application but imposed stringent conditions regarding appearance, cooperation with

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; applicants directed to surrender before investigating officer within three weeks; bail on bond of Rs. 50,000 each with two sureties subject to stringent conditions.

Sanil Kumar Vs State of Kerala — 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

THURSDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 29TH SRAVANA, 1942

¶5

Bail Appl..No.4048 OF 2020

¶6

CRIME NO.703/2020 OF North Parur Police Station, Ernakulam

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

1 SANIL KUMAR AGED 33 YEARS S/O.MOHANAN, POONKUZHIPARAMBIL HOUSE,

¶9

MANJALY, MANNAM P.O., N.PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683 520.

¶10

2 RAKESH

¶11

S/O.RAMESH, KOCHUMANAPADAM HOUSE, MANJALY, MANNAM P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683 520.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.C.K.RAPHEEQUE

¶13

RESPONDENT:

¶14

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

¶15

SRI.C.N.PRABHAKARAN SR PP

¶16

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.08.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

¶18

Bail Appl..No.4048 OF 2020

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Dated this the 20th day of August 2020

¶21

This is an application filed under Section 438

¶22

of Cr.P.C seeking anticipatory bail.

¶23

The applicants are accused Nos.3 and 4 in

¶24

Crime No.703/2020 of North Parur Police Station, Ernakulam, for having allegedly in furtherance of common intention with the 1st accused committed offences punishable under Sections 452, 506, 427 r/w Section 34 of IPC.

¶25

The prosecution case in brief is that, due to previous enmity between the 1^st accused and the de facto complainant, on 13.06.2020 at about 9.15 p.m, all the accused in this case in furtherance

¶26

of common intention to assault the de facto complainant, trespassed into his house. The de facto complainant somehow managed to flee from

¶27

behind the house. Irked by that, the 1st accused armed with an axe, and accused 3 and 4 armed with sticks, committed mischief by destroying the

¶28

Bail Appl..No.4048 OF 2020

¶29

¶30

household articles worth Rs.25,000/- and thus, committed the offence.

¶31

innocent and the allegations are false. They are

¶32

willing to cooperate with the investigation, and

¶33

pray that they may be released on a pre-arrest bail.

¶34

Heard the learned counsel for the

¶35

applicants and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶36

The learned Public Prosecutor points out

¶37

that A1 is a known criminal in that area with more than seven criminal cases registered against him.

¶38

A3 has no criminal antecedents, while A4 has two

¶39

cases registered against him for offences under

¶40

Section 392 of the IPC. Considering the

¶41

antecedents of Accused 1 and 4, it is submitted

¶42

that they may not be released on anticipatory bail. Moreover, it is also submitted that the weapons used by the applicants and A1 will have to be recovered. It is also submitted that had the de

¶43

facto complainant been available in his house he

¶44

Bail Appl..No.4048 OF 2020

¶45

¶46

would have been assaulted.

¶47

circumstances of this case, I find that the major offence allegedly committed by the applicants is house trespass armed with weapons like axe and

¶48

sticks. The axe was in the hand of the 1st accused and he is the person having more than one criminal antecedents. A3 does not have any criminal antecedents, and A4 has two cases against him. Considering the above facts, and the present

¶49

pandemic situation, I find that incarceration of the applicants may not be necessary. However they

¶50

shall co-operate with the investigation and stringent conditions can be imposed.

¶51

In the result the application is allowed, and the applicants are directed to surrender before the investigating officer within three

¶52

weeks. After interrogation and recovery, in the

¶53

event of their being arrested, they shall be

¶54

released on bail on execution of bond for

¶55

Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty thousand only) each with

¶56

¶57

Bail Appl..No.4048 OF 2020

¶58

two solvent sureties each, for the like amount to

¶59

the satisfaction of the investigating officer and

¶60

on the following conditions;

¶61

They shall appear before the investigating

¶62

officer on all Mondays between 9 a.m and 12 noon for a period of two months or until filing of the final report, whichever is

¶63

earlier.

¶64

influence or intimidate witnesses.

¶65

offences during the bail period.

¶66

In the event of violating the bail conditions,

¶67

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

Sd/-

ASHOK MENON

JUDGE

spk

Sanil Kumar v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanil Kumar 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

Ajayakumar G. Vs State of Kerala

Subrahmanian Vs State of Kerala

Rajeev Vs State of Kerala

Robin @ Manu, Vs the State of Kerala

Priyan Antony Prakattu, Vs State of Kerala

Reji . M.P . Vs Public Prosecutor