Partly allowed

Pradeep T.K. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC12 Jul 2021Bail Appl./3607/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed the bail application of the first petitioner, alleged to have used a weapon with no weapon recovered. The second petitioner, pale prisoner neither weapon, was granted bail surrender and cooperation with investigation.

What did the court decide?

Application of first petitioner dismissed; second petitioner allowed bail subject to surrender and cooperation with investigation.

Pradeep T.K. Vs State of Kerala — Cheating and Forgery | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARIPAL MONDAY, THE 12^TH DAY OF JULY 2021 / 21ST ASHADHA, 1943 BAIL APPL. NO. 3607 OF 2021

¶4

CRIME NO.202 OF 2021 OF OTTAPALAM POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD.

¶5

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶6

1 PRADEEP T.K. AGED 36 YEARS SON OF RAGAVAN. T., THEKKEKKATTIL HOUSE, PALLARMANGALAM, PALAPPURAM P.O., OTTAPPALAM PALAKKAD, PIN - 679103 2 PRAMOD. K. AGED 33 YEARS SON OF CHAMI, KUNDIL HOUSE, PALLARMANGALAM, OTTAPPALAM PALAKKAD, PIN - 679103 BY ADV R.RANJITH (MANJERI)

¶7

RESPONDENT:

¶8

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

¶9

SR.PP - SRI. SANTHOSH PETER, ADV. V.A. VINOD FOR DEFACTO COMPLAINANT

¶10

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

B.A.No. 3607 of 2021

ORDER

Petitioners are accused in Crime No.202/2021 of Ottappalam Police Station in Palakkad district, which was registered alleging offence punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 506 read with 34 of the IPC.

¶15

The learned counsel for the petitioners with the aid of Annexure-1 discharge card issued from the Taluk Headquarters Hospital, Ottappalam submits that, in fact, it was the defacto complainant and others who had assaulted and injured the petitioners, that the second petitioner had sustained injuries and was in hospital for three days. According to the learned counsel, both the petitioners as well as the defacto complainant were members of the Vishuvela Special Committee and some disputes arose on the distribution of funds which led to the tussle between them.

¶16

The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted, referring to the first Information Statement that the first accused, that is the first petitioner, had assaulted and injured the defacto complainant as well as one Dhanesh using a knife and the defacto complainant has sustained fracture on his metacarpal bone and Dhanesh also sustained

B.A.No. 3607 of 2021

injuries.

At this juncture, Adv. Sri V.A. Vinod intervened on behalf of the defacto complainant and submitted that in the attack, the said Dhanesh sustained muscle cut injury and had been in hospital for about eight days.

¶21

Whatever it may be, it is evident from the First Information Statement that the second petitioner had not used any weapon of offence, even though he has been roped in with the aid of Section 34 of the IPC. The Annexure-1 document also indicates that he had sustained injuries in some incident and was admitted in hospital on 19.04.2021. So long as he has not used any weapon, his detention is not necessary; only thing is that he should co-operate with the investigation.

¶22

Therefore, the second petitioner is at liberty to surrender before the Investigating Officer and make himself available for the interrogation within ten days from today; in the event of arrest, he shall be released on bail on executing bond for Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer; he shall co-operate with the investigation, shall not try to contact or influence the witnesses or

¶23

B.A.No. 3607 of 2021

¶24

¶25

tamper with the evidence and shall not involve in any crime during the period on bail.

¶26

But it is specifically alleged that the first petitioner had used weapon of offence, a knife against the defacto complainant and the said Dhanesh. In the nature of the allegations, the weapon of offence has to be recovered, so that, application cannot be sustained under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. The petition moved by the first petitioner is dismissed.

¶27

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the first petitioner is prepared to surrender before the Investigating Officer. In that case, in the event of recovering the weapon etc., his arrest shall be recorded on the same day and shall be produced before the court. If, he moves an application for bail, the learned Magistrate may consider the application on the same day.

¶28

Sd/- K.HARIPAL JUDGE

¶29

Jms/12.07

¶30

//True Copy// P.A to Judge

¶31

B.A.No. 3607 of 2021

¶32

Pradeep T.K. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradeep T.K. 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

Sabu Vs State of Kerala

P.V. Biju Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Khader Belma Naringana Vs State of Kerala

C.K.Reji Vs State of Kerala

Irshad Vs State of Kerala

suresh Vs State of Kerala