Allowed

Akhil M.R. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC23 Nov 2020Bail Appl./6518/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed regular bail applications for two accused charged with murder and related offences. Despite prior criminal antecedents and the brutal nature of the alleged crime, the court granted bail considering the one-year custody delay and anticipated trial duration, imposing strict conditions including district restriction and witness protection.

What did the court decide?

Applications allowed; applicants released on bail with bond of Rs.50,000 each plus two sureties, subject to stringent conditions including district restriction and passport surrender.

Akhil M.R. 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

MONDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 2ND AGRAHAYANA, 1942

¶5

Bail Appl..No.5942 OF 2020

¶6

CRIME NO.739/2019 OF CHENGAMANAD POLICE STATION , ERNAKULAM

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

LALKITCHU, AGED 34 YEARS, SON OF KRISHNAN, KIZHAKKEDATH HOUSE, THIRUVILLAMKUNNU BHAGOM, AKAPPARAMBU, NEDUMBASSERY VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM PIN-683589 BY ADV. SRI.NANDAGOPAL S.KURUP

¶9

RESPONDENT:

¶10

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM PIN-682031 R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR R1 BY ADDL.DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION

¶11

OTHER PRESENT:

¶12

SRI.C.K.SURESH – SR.PP

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.11.2020, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..6518/2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

B.A.Nos.5942 & 6518 OF 2020

¶15

¶16

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶17

PRESENT

¶18

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON

¶19

MONDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 2ND AGRAHAYANA, 1942

¶20

Bail Appl..No.6518 OF 2020

¶21

CRIME NO.739/2019 OF CHENGAMANAD POLICE STATION , ERNAKULAM

¶22

PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.4:

¶23

AKHIL M.R., AGED 25 YEARS, S/O RAJAN, MALIAKKAL HOUSE, PUTHUKAI NAGAR BHAGHOM, MEKKADU KARA, NEDUMBASSERY VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT PIN-683589

¶24

BY ADV. SRI.RENJITH B.MARAR

¶25

RESPONDENT:

¶26

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

¶27

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR R1 BY ADDL.DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION

¶28

OTHER PRESENT:

¶29

SRI.C.K.SURESH – SR.PP

¶30

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.11.2020, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..5942/2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶31

B.A.Nos.5942 & 6518 OF 2020

¶32

¶33

COMMON ORDER

¶34

Dated this the 23^rd day of November, 2020

¶35

APPLICATIONS FOR REGULAR BAIL

¶36

Heard the learned counsels appearing for the

¶37

applicants, who are accused Nos. 3 and 4 respectively, in B.A.No.5942 of 2020 and B.A.No.6518 of 2020 in Crime No.739

¶38

of 2019 of Chengamanad Police Station, Ernakulam, for having allegedly committed offences punishable under Sections 120B, 302, 201 read with Section 34 of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

¶39

The earlier applications were dismissed by this Court vide order dated 17.06.2020 and this is the 2^nd time that they are appearing before this Court seeking indulgence for bail for the reason that they have completed one year on judicial custody and still the trial appears to be distant prepositions. A report was called for from the II Additional Sessions Judge, Paravur, where the matter is pending as S.C.No.588 of 2020, and the learned Judge submits that FSL report has not yet been received and in

¶40

B.A.Nos.5942 & 6518 OF 2020

¶41

¶42

case, the forensic lab report is received, it will take about six months time for him to dispose of the matter, even if the trial is taken in an expeditious manner. The learned counsels appearing for the applicants would submit that the application for bail was dismissed because of the brutal manner in which the alleged murder was committed and also for the reasons that the applicants have criminal antecedents. Both the applicants have more than one criminal antecedents against them. But, it is pointed out by the learned counsels appearing for the applicants that the antecedents are of the year 2012 and 2016 and the latest

¶43

antecedents against A3 is of the year 2019 is for a lesser offence under Sections 323 and 341 IPC.

¶44

The bail applications filed by the applicants were dismissed by a common order detailing the reasons why the bail was rejected and there was also a direction given to the Sessions Judge to expedite disposal of the matter. The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that there are 91 witnesses cited for the prosecution. And the trial court has stated that the FSL report is still awaited. Under the circumstances, it seems that the trial is not likely to conclude within even the six months time sought for

¶45

B.A.Nos.5942 & 6518 OF 2020

¶46

¶47

by the learned sessions Judge. Under the circumstances, this Court will have to be indulgent enough to grant bail to the applicants, but on stringent conditions, considering their antecedents.

¶48

In the result, the bail applications are allowed and the applicants are directed to be released on bail on the execution of bonds for Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty thousand only), each with two solvent sureties, each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court and on following further conditions:

¶49

(i) They shall appear before the court on all posting days without fail except on permission granted by the trial judge.

¶50

(ii) They shall surrender their passports before the trial court and in case, they don't have passports, they shall file an affidavit to that effect.

¶51

(iii) They shall not enter the Ernakulam District and shall also furnish their address and phone number to the Investigating officer as also to the jurisdictional court.

¶52

(iv) They shall not intimidate or influence witnesses and tamper with evidence.

¶53

B.A.Nos.5942 & 6518 OF 2020

¶54

¶55

(v) They shall not get involved in similar crimes during the currency of the bail period.

¶56

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

¶57

The bail applications are allowed.

¶58

Sd/ASHOK MENON JUDGE

¶59

NR/23/11/20

Akhil M.R. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akhil M.R. 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

Mary Sunesh Vs State of Kerala

Dr Vipila Vs State of Kerala

Shihabudeen N Vs Public Prosecutor

Muhammed Aneesh K v Vs State of Kerala

Lalkitchu Vs State of Kerala

Ramsudheen M.R @Achu Vs State of Kerala