Allowed

Sreekanth v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC16 Dec 2020Bail Appl./5774/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application for anticipatory bail filed by two accused persons involved in a riot leading to grievous injuries. The High Court allowed the application, directing surrender within two weeks and execution of a bail bond.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; applicants directed to surrender before Investigating Officer within two weeks and execute bail bond for Rs. 50,000 each with two sureties.

Sreekanth Vs 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 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2020 / 25TH AGRAHAYANA, 1942

¶5

Bail Appl..No.5774 OF 2020

¶6

CRIME NO.163/2020 OF Kayamkulam Police Station , Alappuzha

¶7

PETITIONERS/AQCCUSED NO.5,7:

¶8

1 SREEKANTH

¶9

AGED 27 YEARS. S/O. SUDHAKARAN CHIRAYIL PATHIYOOR WEST , KAREELAKULANGARA P.O, ALAPPUZHA – 690 572

¶10

2 SYAM LAL AGED 23 YEARS SYAM LAL NIVAS, KANDALLOOR SOUTH,KANDALLOOR PO ALAPPUZHA – 690 531

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.M.R.SASITH

¶12

RESPONDENT:

¶13

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM - 682031

¶14

BY SRI.AJITH MURALI - P.P

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16.12.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

Bail Appl..No.5774 OF 2020

¶17

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Dated this the 16th day of December 2020

¶20

Application for anticipatory bail

¶21

The applicants are accused nos 5 and 7

¶22

in Crime No.163/2020 of Kayamkulam Police Station, Alapuzha for having allegedly committed offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 341, 324, 307, 326, 149 of the IPC and also Section 5(a) r/w 27 of Arms Act.

¶23

The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 23.11.2020 at about 5.30 p.m the

¶24

applicants along with 10 others were

¶25

members of an unlawful assembly and in the prosecution of the common object of the

¶26

said unlawful assembly to commit murder the

¶27

defacto complainant due to political rivalry, they wrongfully restrained the defacto complainant and committed riot

¶28

Bail Appl..No.5774 OF 2020

¶29

¶30

armed with deadly weapons like sword and iron rod etc. The 1st accused stabbed the defacto complainant with a knife. The 2nd accused hit him on the left side with a sword while the 3rd accused hit him with an iron rod and the 4th accused hit him with the blunt side of the sword causing him serious injuries. The defacto complainant allegedly sustained the fracture also for which offence under Section 326 IPC has been incorporated. The de fact o complainant and the petitioners were students of MSM College Kayamkulam and there existed a rivalry between students belonging to the SFI and KSU Union as a result of which, a scuffle had occurred between the two different political factions and some of the students were injured. The applicants state that they are innocent and they have

¶31

Bail Appl..No.5774 OF 2020

¶32

¶33

been implicated solely for the reason that they were members of an unlawful assembly and also they belong to a political group. The applicants do not have any criminal antecedents also. The 8th accused was

¶34

granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 14.7.2020 in BA No.3688 /2020. The applicants are similarly placed and therefore seek anticipatory bail.

¶35

Heard the learned counsel for the

¶36

applicant and the learned Public

¶37

Prosecutor.

¶38

Going by the description of the offence in the FIR, I find that the perpetrators of the crime were accused No.1 to 4 and they had caused grievance injuries

¶39

to the defacto complainant. The applicant

¶40

and the others were members of the unlawful

¶41

Bail Appl..No.5774 OF 2020

¶42

¶43

assembly and had attacked the defacto complainant in prosecution of the common object of their unlawful assembly. They do

¶44

not have any criminal antecedents also.

¶45

Hence they are also entitled to

¶46

anticipatory bail.

¶47

In the result, the application is

¶48

allowed and the applicants are directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer within two weeks. After interrogation, in

¶49

the event of being arrested they shall be released on bail on execution of a bond for Rs.50,000/- each with two solvent sureties

¶50

for the like amount with the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer and on the following conditions;

¶51

(i) They shall appear before the

¶52

Investigating Officer on all Saturdays

¶53

between 11 am and 12 noon.

¶54

Bail Appl..No.5774 OF 2020

¶55

pass port before the jurisdictional Court and if they do not have one,

¶56

file an affidavit to that effect.

¶57

evidence, influence or intimidate

¶58

witnesses.

¶59

in any similar offences during the

¶60

bail period.

¶61

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.

¶62

ASHOK MENON Sn JUDGE

Sreekanth v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sreekanth 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

Ms Mathew Vs State of Kerala

M.S Mathew Vs State of Kerala

Ashok Kumar B Vs Public Prosecutor

Sijo Mathew Vs State of Kerala

Sijo Mathew Vs State of Kerala

Giri Alias Krishnakesh G .H Vs State of Kerala