Allowed

Praveen Kumar E v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC16 Feb 2021Bail Appl./452/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a bail application by two accused persons facing charges under IPC Sections 341, 323, 326, 308, and 294(b) r/w 34. The High Court granted bail on the day of hearing, permitting surrender for interrogation within two weeks without arrest conditions in the interim.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted with liberty to surrender for interrogation within two weeks; arrest bail conditioned on bond of Rs.50,000 each and standard conduct conditions.

Praveen Kumar E Vs State of Kerala — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 27TH MAGHA,1942

¶5

Bail Appl..No.452 OF 2021

¶6

CRIME NO.9/2021 OF Atholy Police Station, Kozhikode

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:

¶8

1 PRAVEEN KUMAR E AGED 48 YEARS SON OF MADHAVAN NAIR, EDATHIL HOUSE, P.O ULLIYERI, KOZHIKKODE -673620

¶9

2 BAIJU E AGED 39 YEARS SON OF BALARAMAN, ELAMBILASSERI, P.O ULLIYERI -673620

¶10

BY ADVS. SRI.SANTHARAM.P SRI.P.G.GOKULNATH SMT.REKHA ARAVIND SRI.PAUL P. ABRAHAM

¶11

RESPONDENT/S:

¶12

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

¶13

R1 BY SMT.V.SREEJA, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

¶16

Bail Appl..No.452 OF 2021

¶17

ORDER

¶18

Dated this the 16th day of February 2021

¶19

The applicants are accused Nos. 1 and 2 in Crime No.
9/2021 of the Atholi Police Station, Kozhikode, for having
allegedly committed offences punishable under Section 341,
323, 326, 308 and 294(b) r/w Section 34 of the IPC.

¶20

2. The prosecution case in brief is that due to previous
enmity towards the defacto complainant, on 06.01.2021 at
Palora bus stop, the accused persons in furtherance of their
common intention wrongfully restrained the defacto
complainant, hurled abuses and thereafter the 1st accused beat
the defacto complainant with dangerous weapons like iron rod
and the 2nd accused also beat him up and thus the defacto
complainant sustained grievous injuries by breaking his tooth
and the applicants committed the offence.

¶21

3. The applicants state that the allegations are not true
and that there was a scuffle and because the defacto
complainant was in inebriated condition, and he sustained
some injuries. The applicants did not have any intention to

¶22

¶23

Bail Appl..No.452 OF 2021

¶24

voluntarily cause hurt to the defacto complainant. They do not
have any criminal antecedents and they are willing to co-
operate with the investigation and therefore seek pre-arrest
bail.

¶25

4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicant
and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶26

5. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that they have
no criminal antecedents and the 1st accused have allegedly
used an iron rod which is yet to be recovered. The applicants
are not likely to abscond and they are willing to co-operate
with the investigation. Under the circumstances, I find that the
custodial interrogation of the applicants may not be necessary.

¶27

Hence, this application is allowed. The applicants shall
surrender before the investigating officer within two weeks
from today. After interrogation, in the event of their arrest,
they shall be released on bail on their executing a bond for a
sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) each with two
solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the
investigating officer and on the following conditions:

¶28

(i) The applicants shall appear before the

¶29

Investigating Officer as and when called for.

¶30

Bail Appl..No.452 OF 2021

¶31

¶32

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

¶33

(iii) They shall not get involved in similar

¶34

offences during the bail period.

¶35

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

¶36

Sd/-

¶37

ASHOK MENON

¶38

JUDGE

¶39

avs

Praveen Kumar E v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Praveen Kumar E 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anas Paral Vs State of Kerala

Vineeth B. Vs State of Kerala

Bindu Nk Vs State of Kerala

Asrudheen K Vs State of Kerala

Vishnu Salman Vs State of Kerala

Anokh Vs State of Kerala