Allowed

Prakash v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC27 Nov 2020Bail Appl./6395/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge of Kerala High Court allowed anticipatory bail petition filed by three accused persons accused of offences under IPC including murder and robbery. Court noted no specific overt act attributed to applicants and no material indicating involvement in common object.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted; directed to surrender within two weeks; bonds of Rs.50,000 each with two solvent sureties.

Prakash 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

FRIDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 6TH AGRAHAYANA, 1942

¶5

Bail Appl..No.6395 OF 2020

¶6

CRIME NO.783/2020 OF Santhanpara Police Station, Idukki

¶7

PETITIONER/S:

¶8

1 PRAKASH

¶9

AGED 53 YEARS SON OF KUMARAN, KANIKKAT HOUSE, NGP-XIV-551, KOMBAYAR KARA, PARATHODE VILLAGE, IDUKKI DISTRICT 685571

¶10

2 MURUKAN @ VELUSWAMY AGED 52 YEARS SON OF MURUKAYYATHEVAR, RESIDING AT BLOCK NO. 1204, KGP-XVII-266, BALAGRAM KARA, KARUNAPURAM VILLAGE, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 685552

¶11

3 SHYJU AGED 39 YEARS

¶12

S/O. SASI, RESIDING AT KGP-111-517, BLOCK NO:580, KARUNAPURAM VILLAGE, IDUKKI DISTRICT.

¶13

BY ADV. SRI.SREELAL N.WARRIER

¶14

RESPONDENT/S:

¶15

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

¶16

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.B.JAYASURYA SR PP

¶17

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27.11.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

Bail Appl..No.6395 OF 2020

¶19

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Dated this the 27th day of November 2020

¶22

This is an application filed under Section 438

¶23

of Cr.P.C seeking anticipatory bail.

¶24

The applicants are accused Nos.10 to 12 in

¶25

Crime No.783/2020 of Santhanpara Police Station, Idukki, for having allegedly committed offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 452, 294(b), 441, 324, 307, 427, 397 r/w Section 149 of the

¶26

IPC.

¶27

The prosecution case, in brief, is that the

¶28

accused Nos.1 to 9 had in prosecution of the common object to commit the murder of the de facto

¶29

complainant, entered his estate bungalow and allegedly hurled abuses at him and assaulted him

¶30

and attempted to commit murder. They also

¶31

committed the robbery of Rs.10 lakh in cash and a

¶32

revolver kept in his Innova car.

¶33

The applicants state that they are innocent

¶34

Bail Appl..No.6395 OF 2020

¶35

and they are all taxi jeep drivers eking out a

¶36

livelihood by plying taxis in Santhampara. They were neither involved in the alleged assault nor were they members of the unlawful assembly which in the prosecution of the common object of the

¶37

committed the offence alleged. They had

¶38

transported some persons to the estate when they had hired their taxis. The intention behind going to the estate was not known to them, and moreover,

¶39

they do not have any criminal antecedents. They

¶40

also do not have anything animosity towards the de facto complainant and had no intention or motive

¶41

to attack and cause hurt to the de facto

¶42

complainant. The applicants seek anticipatory bail.

¶43

Heard the learned counsel for the

¶44

applicants and the learned Public Prosecutor. Records available were perused.

¶45

The applicants admittedly have no criminal

¶46

Bail Appl..No.6395 OF 2020

¶47

antecedents. Going by the allegations, it is seen that there was no specific overt act attributed to the applicants. The specific allegation is that

¶48

the taxi jeeps of the applicants were hired by the other accused to reach the scene of occurrence. There is no material at present to indicate that

¶49

the applicants had also joined in the common

¶50

object to commit the offence. There is no

¶51

conspiracy alleged by the prosecution to show that

¶52

the applicants were part of the conspiracy to

¶53

commit the offence. Under the circumstances, I

¶54

find no reason for custodial interrogation of the applicants. It is also understood that there is

¶55

also a counter case registered by the prosecution against the de facto complainant.

¶56

In the result, the application is allowed

¶57

and the applicants are directed to surrender

¶58

before the investigating officer within two weeks,

¶59

and after interrogation in the event of their

¶60

Bail Appl..No.6395 OF 2020

¶61

arrest, they shall be released on bail on the execution of bonds for Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty thousand only) each with two solvent sureties for the like amount each to the satisfaction of the

¶62

investigating officer and on the following conditions;

¶63

influence or intimidate witnesses.

¶64

2.They shall appear before the investigating officer as and when called for.

¶65

3.They shall not get involved in similar

¶66

offences during the bail period.

¶67

In the event of violating the bail conditions,

¶68

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

Sd/-

ASHOK MENON

JUDGE

SPK

Prakash v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prakash 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

Thomas Daniel Vs State of Kerala

O.Abdul Kareem Alias Kunhani Vs State Fo Kerala

Kunjumuhammed Vs State of Kerala

Bijoy Mathew Vs State of Kerala

Raveendran Nair Vs State of Kerala

Shaji K H Vs State of Kerala