Allowed

K.M. Raghunath v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC12 Feb 2021Bail Appl./222/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court granted anticipatory bail to two petitioners accused of instigating a mob to assault police officers during local body elections. Having found them unarmed and无前科, the Court directed surrender within two weeks and set bail bonds.

What did the court decide?

Bail application allowed; direction to surrender within two weeks; bond of Rs. 50,000 each with two sureties each for like amount.

K.M. Raghunath Vs State of Kerala — Election Law | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 23RD MAGHA,1942

¶5

Bail Appl..No.222 OF 2021

¶6

CRIME NO.756/2020 OF Nadapuram Police Station , Kozhikode

¶7

PETITIONER/S:

¶8

1 K.M. RAGHUNATH AGED 47 YEARS S.O. APPUNNI NAIR, KANNAM VALLY MEETHAL HOUSE, VARIKKOLI P.O., KALLACHI, NADAPURAM 673506 2 K.T.K. ASHOKAN AGED 44 YEARS S.O. KANARAN, THEKKE PANGATT HOUSE, VISHNUMANGALAM P.O., KALLACHI, NADAPURAM 673506 BY ADVS. SRI.S.RAJEEV SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN SRI.V.VINAY SRI.K.ANAND (A-1921)

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA 682031 R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶11

SMT.V.SREEJA PP

¶12

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

BA 222/2021

O R D E R

Dated this the 12th day of February 2021

¶17

This is an application seeking anticipatory bail.

¶18

The applicants are accused 1 and 2 in Crime No.756/2020 of Nadapuram Police Station, for having allegedly committed offences punishable under Sections 143, 145, 147, 148, 152, 341, 353, 332, 294(b) and 308 r/w Section 149 of Indian Penal Code, Section 3(1) of PDPP Act and Sections 4(2)(e), 4(2)(j) and 3(e) of Kerala Epidemic Diseases Ordinance.

¶19

The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 14.12.2020 at about 12.30 p.m., the day on which the local body elections were being held, the applicants instigated the other accused and formed an unlawful assembly and in violation of the orders and also the pandemic restrictions, they committed riot armed with weapons like stones and firewoods, and attacked the police officers and deterred them from performing their duty as police officers in connection with the Election. The Sub Inspector of Police of

¶20

¶21

BA 222/2021

¶22

Nadapuram Police Station, the Assistant Sub Inspector and four Civil Police Officers were injured. The applicants and the other accused also committed mischief by causing damage to the police jeep and a total loss of Rs.44,000/- was caused.

¶23

The applicants state that the allegations are not true.

¶24

The first accused is a lawyer by profession and he was a candidate for the local body elections. The second applicant was the chief election agent of the first accused. They do not have any criminal antecedents. Even going by the allegations in the FI statement, they had only instigated the others to commit the offence. The persons named as accused in the FI statement were already arrested and there were a strong mob of about 100 persons involved in the alleged act of rioting. The applicants have been arrayed as accused solely for the reason that the first accused was a candidate and the second accused was his election agent and that the alleged act of rioting was committed by the persons owing political allegiance to the applicants, and hence, they have been implicated. They do not have any criminal antecedents. They are not likely to abscond and get involved in

¶25

¶26

BA 222/2021

¶27

offences of similar nature. Hence, the applicants seek pre-arrest bail.

¶28

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicants and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶29

The learned Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the application stating that six police officers on duty were deterred from performing their duty and assaulted by the applicants and others. It is pointed out that the applicants had specifically instigated the other accused to assault the police officers and stones were pelted. Accused 4 and 11 were wielding firewoods and had assaulted the police officers. Therefore, the application for bail may not be entertained, submits the learned Prosecutor.

¶30

After having heard the learned counsel for the applicants and the learned Public Prosecutor and having perused the records available, I find that the specific allegation against the applicants is only to the effect that they had instigated a mob of about 100 persons to go berserk and attack the policemen. There was pelting of stones. Two of them were armed with firewoods. The applicants were not armed with any weapons. There is also

¶31

¶32

BA 222/2021

¶33

no allegation of their pelting of stones on the policemen and the only allegation against them is that they were the leaders who had instigated the mob to go berserk. The applicants do not have any criminal antecedents. There is no possibility of their absconding or not cooperating with the investigation. Under the circumstances, I find no reason to decline anticipatory bail to them.

¶34

In the result, the Bail Application is allowed and the applicants are directed to surrender before the investigating officer within two weeks. In the event of their being arrested, after interrogation, they shall be released on bail on execution of bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) each with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the investigating officer and on the following conditions:

¶35

(i) They shall appear before the investigating officer as

¶36

and when called for and co-operate with the investigation.

¶37

(ii) They shall not tamper with evidence or intimidate or influence the witnesses.

¶38

(iii) They shall not get involved in any similar offence during the currency of the bail.

¶39

¶40

BA 222/2021

¶41

In case of breach of any of the above bail conditions, the prosecution is at liberty to approach the jurisdictional court for

¶42

cancellation of the bail.

Sd/-

ASHOK MENON

JUDGE

K.M. Raghunath v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.M. Raghunath 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

Jayakumar. D Vs State of Kerala

Krishnanunni Vs State of Kerala

Annamma George @ Sini Vs State of Kerala

Mineev Vs State of Kerala

1. Faisal Basheer Vs State of Kerala

Anitha Ka Vs State of Kerala