Allowed

Ramakrishnan Nair v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC14 Dec 2021Bail Appl./4140/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala granted anticipatory bail to accused persons charged with offences under Sections 427, 323, 324, 326, and 34 of the IPC. Bail was subject to conditions including the execution of bond, daily reporting to the investigating officer, and restrictions on influencing witnesses or committing further crimes.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners granted anticipatory bail subject to execution of bond, daily reporting to IO, and conditions against influencing witnesses.

Ramakrishnan Nair Vs the State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 14^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021 / 23RD AGRAHAYANA, 1943

¶5

BAIL APPL. NO. 4140 OF 2021

¶6

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 & 2:

¶7

1 RAMAKRISHNAN NAIR AGED 56 YEARS S/O.SANKARANKUTTY NAIR, LEKSHI NIVAS, DEVASWOM KARICHIRA, SANATHANAPURAM P.O., PALLATHURUTHY, ALAPPUZHA - 688 003.

¶8

2 ANOOPKRISHNAN AGED 20 YEARS S/O.RAMAKRISHNAN NAIR, LEKSHMI NIVAS, DEVASWOM KARICHIRA, SANATHANAPURAM P.O., PALLATHURUTHY, ALAPPUZHA - 688 003.

¶9

BY ADV S.ANIL

¶10

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶11

THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031. (REPRESENTING STATION HOUSE OFFICER, ALAPPUZHA SOUTH POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT).

¶12

OTHER PRESENT:

¶13

SMT. SEETHA .S. (SR.PP)

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.12.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

B.A.No.4140/2021

ORDER

This is an application for anticipatory bail.

¶19

The petitioners are the accused in Crime No.369/2021 of Alappuzha South Police Station, Alappuzha District alleging commission of offences under Sections 427, 323, 324, 326 & 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶20

The allegation against the petitioners is that on 24.5.2021 at 10.30 a.m., the petitioners attacked the de facto complainant and as a result of the said assault, the de facto complainant suffered a hairline fracture to her left elbow.

¶21

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the de facto complainant is none other than sister of the 1^st petitioner. It is submitted that there are various civil disputes between the 1^st petitioner and the de facto complainant and that it was actually the de facto complainant who came to the house of the 1^st petitioner and entered into an argument with the petitioners. It is submitted that the alleged incident is said to have occurred on 24.5.2021 and that on 23.2.2021, the wife of the 1^st petitioner had filed two complaints against the de facto complainant which is evidenced by Annexures-1 & 2. It is submitted that on 25.5.2021 also, the wife of the 1^st petitioner had filed a complaint against the de facto complainant and that the present crime has been registered at the instance of the de facto complainant only as a counterblast to the complaints filed against her by the wife of the 1^st

¶22

B.A.No.4140/2021

¶23

¶24

petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioners are absolutely innocent in the matter and the attempt of the de facto complainant is to see that civil disputes are settled in the manner that she wants by implicating the petitioners in false criminal cases. It is submitted that, at any rate, the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not necessary, in the facts and circumstances of the cases. It is also submitted that the offence under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code is not attracted as there is nothing to suggest that the de facto complainant had suffered a hairline fracture.

¶25

I have heard the learned Pubic Prosecutor also.

¶26

The learned Public Prosecutor submits that, going by the allegations contained in the complaint of the de facto complainant, she had suffered a hairline fracture on account of being assaulted using a cricket bat. It is submitted that the cricket bat is yet to be recovered and that for the purposes of proper investigation into the matter, the custody of the petitioners is absolutely necessary.

¶27

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and taking into account the nature of the allegations against the petitioners and also taking into account the fact that there are various disputes between the petitioners and de facto complainant, I am of the view that the petitioners can be granted anticipatory bail subject to conditions to ensure that they co-operate with the investigation in every manner possible.

¶28

In the result, this application for anticipatory bail is allowed. It is directed that the petitioners shall be released on bail in the event of

¶29

B.A.No.4140/2021

¶30

¶31

their arrest in Crime No. 369/2021 of Alappuzha South Police Station, subject to the following conditions:-

¶32

(i) The petitioners shall execute bond for sums of Rs.50,000/(Rupees fifty thousand only) each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court;

¶33

(ii) The petitioners shall report before the investigating officer in Crime No. 369/2021 of Alappuzha South Police Station at 9.00 A.M every day for the period from 20.12.2021 till 24.12.2021 and thereafter, whenever called upon to do so;

¶34

(iii) The petitioners shall not attempt to influence or intimidate the de facto complainant or any witness in Crime No. 369/2021 of Alappuzha South Police Station;

¶35

(iv) The petitioners shall not involve in any other crime while on bail.

¶36

If any of the aforesaid conditions are violated, the investigating officer in Crime No.369/2021 of Alappuzha South Police Station, Alappuzha District may file an application before the jurisdictional Court, for cancellation of bail.

¶37

Sd/-

¶38

GOPINATH P. JUDGE

¶39

acd

Ramakrishnan Nair v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramakrishnan Nair v. the 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

Arun T M Vs State of Kerala

Abel Sabu Vs State of Kerala

Shajo S. Vs State of Kerala

Eldho Shaju Vs the Station House Officer

Shemeer Vs the Station House Officer

Bastin J.John Vs State of Kerala