Partly allowed

Sreejith v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC9 Jul 2021Bail Appl./4301/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application challenging convictions under IPC sections 341, 323, 427, 326, 452, and 392, the High Court of Kerala dismissed bail for the primary accused based on serious injury allegations but granted bail to two other co-accused as they faced no specific weapon-related charges.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted to petitioners 2 and 3 on Rs. 50,000 bond each with sureties. Bail application for petitioner 1 dismissed.

Sreejith 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

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 9^TH DAY OF JULY 2021 / 18TH ASHADHA, 1943

¶5

BAIL APPL. NO. 4301 OF 2021

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN MC 392/2021 OF DISTRICT COURT& SESSIONS COURT,MANJERI, MALAPPURAM

¶7

PETITIONER/S:

¶8

1 SREEJITH AGED 33 YEARS S/O.CHANDRAN, RESIDING AT MANALATH HOUSE, PALLIKKARA AMSOM, VADKKUMMURI DESOM, POST MOOKKUTHALA, PONNANI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, 679 574.

¶9

2 LIJEESH AGED 33 YEARS S/O.OORAPPAN, RESIDING AT THAZHATHELA VALAPPIL HOUSE, PALLIKKARA AMSOM, VADKKUMMURI DESOM, POST MOOKKUTHALA, PONNANI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, 679 574. 3 NISHIL AGED 19 YEARS S/O. SURA, RESIDING AT NAMBIDIYATTEL HOUSE, NEAR PATHIRIYAL, PALLIKKARA AMSOM, VADKKUMMURI DESOM, POST MOOKKUTHALA, PONNANI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, 679 574.

¶10

BY ADV RAJIT (K/1127/1993)-20137

¶11

RESPONDENT/S:

¶12

STATE OF KERALA REP. BY PUBLIC PROSEUCTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA.

¶13

OTHER PRESENT:

¶14

ADV. SRI. SANTHOSH PETER, PUBLIC PROSEUCTOR

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

BAIL APPL. NO. 4301 OF 2021

¶17

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The petitioners are the accused in Crime No. 121 of

¶20

Changarakulam police station in Malappuram district. Going by the prosecution records, the said crime was registered alleging offence under Sections 341, 323, 427, 326 r/w 34 of the I.P.C. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that it is an intra party rivalry arose at the time of assembly election. There is nothing in the F.I.R., which was recorded after one day of occurrence, that the accused had used a torch and caused grievous injuries to the defacto complainant.

¶21

According to the learned Public Prosecutor, specific allegation against the 1^st accused is that he had caused grievous hurt to the defacto complainant using a torch, resultantly caused him fracture on his nasal bone. Now offences under Secitons 452 and 392 of I.P.C. are also alleged against the petitioners.

¶22

After hearing counsel on the both sides, I am not inclined to

¶23

grant an order in favour of the 1^st petitioner, who is the 1^st accused who had allegedly used a torch by using which the defacto complainant sustained fracture on his nasal bone. Therefore, his application is liable to be dismissed. Dismissed.

¶24

¶25

BAIL APPL. NO. 4301 OF 2021

¶26

Turning to the plea of the petitioners 2 and 3, there is no specific allegation that they had used any weapon of offence. Even though they also face the allegation that they took away a gold chain worn by the defacto complainant, considering the nature of allegations, the petitioners 2 and 3 can be released on bail.

¶27

In the circumstances, the petitioners 2 and 3 shall be at liberty to surrender before the Investigating Officer within ten days from today and will make themselves available for interrogation; in the event of arrest, they shall be released on bail on executing bond for Rs.50,000/(Rupees fifty thousand only) each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer; they shall cooperate with the investigation, shall not try to contact or influence the witnesses or tamper with the evidence; shall not involve in any crime during the period on bail.

¶28

Bail Application is allowed to petitioners 2 and 3 as above.

¶29

Sd/-

¶30

K.HARIPAL JUDGE

¶31

rps/

Sreejith v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sreejith 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

Sarath Shaji Vs State of Kerala

Manunath Vs State of Kerala

Anoop Vs State of Kerala

Sabu Vs State of Kerala

P.V. Biju Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Khader Belma Naringana Vs State of Kerala