Allowed

Midhu Mohan v. State Kerala

Kerala HC24 Feb 2020Bail Appl./479/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court allowed a pre-arrest bail application filed by student accused persons involved in an allegation of unlawful assembly and offence against public property. The court imposed conditions including a bond and cooperation with investigation.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail after interrogation on executing a bond for Rs. 50,000/- with two solvent sureties for like sums under specified conditions.

Midhu Mohan Vs State Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

Bail Appl..No.479 OF 2020

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V.

¶6

MONDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 5TH PHALGUNA, 1941

¶7

Bail Appl..No.479 OF 2020

¶8

CRIME NO.839/2019 OF Town West Police Station , Thrissur

¶9

APPLICANTS/ACCUSED NOS.1,2,4,5,6 AND 7

¶10

1 MIDHU MOHAN AGED 26 YEARS S/O. K.O.LAZER, KAITHARAM HOUSE, POOTHOLE P.O., M.G. ROAD, PIN - 688 004

¶11

2 GOKUL K., AGED 24 YEARS KUZHIKKATTIL HOUSE, KATTUPADAM, KOTTAPPADI P.O., THRISSUR, PIN - 680 505

¶12

3 JEROME JOHN, AGED 26 YEARS S/O. JOHN, VATTAKUZHY HOUSE, KALLOOR P.O., THRISSUR, PIN - 680 317

¶13

4 SACHIN T. PRADEEP AGED 21 YEARS S/O. PRADEEP, TAYYIL HOUSE, P.O. NEDUPUZHA, THRISSUR, PIN - 680 007

¶14

5 PRINCE FRANCIS, AGED 26 YEARS S/O. FRANCIS, ARIPPALATHUKARAN HOUSE, VARANDARAPILLY, VARAKKARA P.O., THRISSUR

¶15

6 VISHNU CHANDRAN AGED 26 YEARS S/O. CHANDRAN, THOOYATHU HOUSE, NEDUPUZHA P.O., THRISSUR, PIN - 680 007

¶16

BY ADVS. SMT.DEEPA K.RADHAKRISHNAN SRI.ARUN SAMUEL

¶17

Bail Appl..No.479 OF 2020

¶18

¶19

RESPONDENTS/STATE OF KERALA:

¶20

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

¶21

OTHER PRESENT:

¶22

SR P.P. C.N. PRABHAKRAN

¶23

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.02.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

Bail Appl..No.479 OF 2020

¶25

¶26

ORDER

¶27

Application for pre-arrest bail filed under Section 438 of

¶28

the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶29

The petitioners are the accused Nos.1,2,4,5,6 and 7

¶30

in Crime No.839 of 2019 of Thrissur Town West Police Station

¶31

registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143,147,148,283,323,324,326,332,333,353,294(b) read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, and Section 6 of Kerala Public Way Restriction of Assemblies and Procession Act and Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Damages to Public Property

¶32

Act, 1984 and Section 117(e) of Kerala Police Act, 2011.

¶33

The prosecution allegation is that on 25.11.2019 at

¶34

about 12.00 hours, the petitioners along with 30 others have

¶35

formed themselves into an unlawful assembly in prosecution

¶36

of their common object to protest against the Education

¶37

Minister, lodged in the guest house at Thrissur. The petitioners

¶38

Bail Appl..No.479 OF 2020

¶39

¶40

and the other accused took out a procession to Kerala Varma

¶41

College Hostel, raising slogans against the Education Minister

¶42

and obstructed the traffic by sitting on the road, and thereafter

¶43

when the police intervened to disburse the procession, they have attacked the police and obstructed the police personnel from discharging their official duties. They also caused

¶44

damages to the public property to the tune of Rs.25,000/-.

¶45

Thereby they have committed the aforesaid offences.

¶46

According to the learned counsel for the

¶47

petitioners, these petitioners are students. On that particular

¶48

day they were protesting against the Minister for a valid reason. They were leading a peaceful procession to the government guest house where the Minister was

¶49

accommodated. While the procession was going on, the police personnel obstructed the same and intervened unnecessarily and caused disturbance in proceeding with the procession.

¶50

Bail Appl..No.479 OF 2020

¶51

¶52

Somehow or other the police personnel as well the students

¶53

sustained minor injuries. But it was not as alleged by the prosecution and they never obstructed the police personnel from discharging their official duties. But they apprehend

¶54

arrest and torture by the police. Hence this application.

¶55

The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that

¶56

these petitioners are students, but the police personnel who

¶57

were on duty to maintain law and order were attacked by these petitioners and other agitators and thereby they sustained injuries and so many police officers had to undergo treatment in the hospital and one police officer had to avail medical leave for about one month due to the injury caused to him by the agitators. Hence, the allegations levelled against

¶58

them are very grave and serious in nature. This application is

¶59

opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor mainly for the said

¶60

reason.

¶61

Bail Appl..No.479 OF 2020

¶62

¶63

The CD file produced by the learned Public Prosecutor

¶64

would show that though the police personnel had sustained

¶65

injuries in the incident, all the injuries are minor in nature. The petitioners are students and it is also revealed from the CD file that they were leading a procession as a part of protest against

¶66

the Minister for a valid reason. An amount of Rs.25,000/- had already been deposited by the 3^rd accused, as the prosecution

¶67

alleged that loss had been caused to public property.

¶68

Considering the nature of the accusations levelled against the petitioner as well the fact that all these petitioners are students pursuing their studies, I think that the petition for

¶69

pre-arrest bail can be allowed subject to the following

¶70

conditions:

¶71

i) The petitioners shall be released on bail after interrogation, on executing a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/(Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum each in the event of arrest by the police in connection

¶72

Bail Appl..No.479 OF 2020

¶73

¶74

with the above crime.

¶75

(ii) They shall make themselves available for interrogation before the Investigating Officer as and when required by him in writing. They shall co-operate with the investigation of the case.

¶76

(iii) They shall not directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶77

(iv) They shall not commit any offence while on bail.

¶78

(v) In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the learned Magistrate is empowered to cancel the bail in accordance with the law.

Sd/-

SHIRCY V.

smm JUDGE

Bail Appl..No.479 OF 2020 8

Midhu Mohan v. State Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Midhu Mohan v. State 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

Abdul Rahmam Vs State of Kerala

Agresh v. Suresh, Vs State of Kerala

Vignesh Vs State of Kerala

Johny Vs the State of Kerala

Jayaprakash Vs State of Kerala

Sudhakaran Pillai Vs State of Kerala