Allowed

Ratheesh Kumar v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC15 Mar 2023Bail Appl./1084/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners charged with offences under the IPC. The court imposed conditions including surrender for interrogation, execution of bond, cooperation with investigation, and prohibition against intimidating witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners enlarged on anticipatory bail subject to conditions of surrender, bond execution, cooperation with investigation, and non-interference.

Ratheesh Kumar Vs State of Kerala — Anticipatory Bail | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN WEDNESDAY, THE 15^TH DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 24TH PHALGUNA, 1944 BAIL APPL. NO. 1084 OF 2023

¶4

CRIME NO.55/2023 OF NOORANADU POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA

¶5

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:

¶6

1 RATHEESH KUMAR AGED 42 YEARS S/O CHELLAPPAN, MALAVILAYIL MATTAPPALLY, OLAVUKKADU MURI, PALAMEL VILLAGE, NOORANAD ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 689512 2 SHYAM KUMAR AGED 31 YEARS S/O SIVAN, SUBHASH BHAVANAM, MATTAPPALLY OLAVUKKADU MURI, PALAMEL VILLAGE, NOORANAD ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 689512 BY ADVS. S.SHANAVAS KHAN S.INDU KALA G.NAMBIAR

¶7

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶8

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

¶9

BY SR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P G MANU

¶10

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15.03.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶11

BAIL APPL. NO. 1084 OF 2023 2

¶12

ORDER

¶13

Dated this the 15^th day of March, 2023.

¶14

Anticipatory bail filed by the petitioners, who got arrayed as accused Nos.5 and 6 in Crime No.55/2023 of Nooranadu Police Station, Alappuzha, is the crux of this petition, filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶15

Heard the learned counsel for the

¶16

petitioners as well as the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶17

I have perused the relevant records.

¶18

In this matter, the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 341, 294(b), 323, 324, 308, 506(ii) r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶19

The specific allegation is that, when the de facto complainant, who is the legal adviser of

¶20

BAIL APPL. NO. 1084 OF 2023 3

¶21

Sreeram Finance Ltd., along with the Manager, reached the residence of the de facto complainant, the accused herein wrongfully restrained them, while they were returning and accused Nos.1 to 3 assaulted the de facto complainant and Amal, by using an iron rod. The allegation against the petitioners is that, the petitioners herein (accused Nos.5 and 6) along with accused Nos.8 and 9 restricted the further movement of the de facto complainant and Amal and facilitated assault by accused Nos.1 to 3.

¶22

The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the overt acts against the petitioners are much less. Further, the prosecution has no case that they did use any weapon to assault the de facto complainant or Amal, in any manner. Therefore, the petitioners may be released on anticipatory bail. The learned counsel would further

¶23

BAIL APPL. NO. 1084 OF 2023 4

¶24

submit that the petitioners are ready to be abide by

¶25

any conditions, as a pre-requisite for grant of anticipatory bail and they are ready to co-operate with the investigation.

¶26

The learned Public Prosecutor opposed bail. According to him, though there is no allegation for the prosecution that, accused Nos.5 and 6 did not use any weapon, they are also contributed attack against the de facto complainant and Amal, by wrongfully restraining them to facilitate attack by the other accused.

¶27

On perusal of the case diary, the allegations are serious, but the allegations against the petitioners are confined to wrongful restrainment and there is no allegation that they did use any weapon to assault the de facto complainant or the above said Amal. No criminal antecedents also reported insofar as the petitioners are concerned.

¶28

BAIL APPL. NO. 1084 OF 2023 5

¶29

Therefore, directing the petitioners to subject themselves for interrogation, they can be enlarged on anticipatory bail, on the following conditions:

¶30

i. The petitioners shall surrender before the Investigating Officer within ten days from today and on such surrender, the Investigating Officer can question the petitioners. In the event of their arrest, the Investigating Officer shall produce the petitioners before the jurisdictional court on the date of arrest itself.

¶31

ii. On such production, the jurisdictional court shall release the petitioners on bail, on executing bond for Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand only) each by themselves and by two solvent sureties, each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court.

¶32

iii. The petitioners shall co-operate with

¶33

BAIL APPL. NO. 1084 OF 2023 6

¶34

investigation and shall be made available for interrogation and for the purpose of investigation, as and when the Investigating Officer directs so.

¶35

iv. The petitioners, shall not, intimidate the witnesses or interfere with the investigation in any manner.

¶36

v. The petitioners shall not commit any offence during currency of this bail and any such involvement is a reason to cancel the bail hereby granted.

¶37

Sd/-

¶38

A. BADHARUDEEN JUDGE

¶39

Ratheesh Kumar v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ratheesh Kumar 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

Shinumon a Vs State of Kerala

Baby Vs State of Kerala

Favas K.P Vs State of Kerala

Rivaj P.V Vs State of Kerala

Alifkhan Abdul Ahad Safeena Vs State of Kerala

Abins Vs State of Kerala