Allowed

Sandeep S.U v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC13 Jul 2023Bail Appl./4012/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a bail application for two accused journalists charged with criminal conspiracy, extortion, and cheating. The Court held that allegations of intimidation were unsubstantiated and custodial interrogation was not required. Directions were issued for the petitioners to surrender within ten days and execute a bond.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted upon surrender within ten days and execution of bond for Rs.25,000 with two sureties.

Sandeep S.U Vs State of Kerala — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 13^TH DAY OF JULY 2023 / 22ND ASHADHA, 1945

¶5

BAIL APPL. NO. 4012 OF 2023

¶6

CRIME NO.444/2023 OF MALA POLICE STATION, THRISSUR

¶7

PETITIONERS/1ST & 4TH ACCUSED:

¶8

1 SANDEEP S.U AGED 39 YEARS S/O T.K UNNIKRISHNAN, RESIDING AT ALAKAPURI PUNCHAPARAMBIL, ASHTAMICHIRA.P.O, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680731 2 PRESTO.E.S AGED 35 YEARS S/O. E.L. SILVAN, RESIDING AT ELANJIKKAL HOUSE, MALA, PALLIPURAM.P.O, THRISSUR DISTRICT PIN – 680732

¶9

BY ADVS. S.SAJU A.V.SAJAN ANJANADEVI.G SWETHA.S. NAINA FAHIMATH M.S.

¶10

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶11

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

¶12

BY ADV. RENJITH GEORGE, SR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.07.2023,

¶14

THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

B.A.NO.4012 OF 2023

ORDER

Dated this the 13^th day of July, 2023

¶19

Petitioners are accused Nos. 1 and 4 in Crime No.444 of 2023 registered at the Mala Police Station alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 384 and 441 of the Indian Penal Code. The crime is registered at the instance of the Secretary of Holy Grace Group of Institution, Kuruvilassery. The defacto complainant alleges that the petitioners trespassed into the compound of the institution and made video recordings of campus and hostel without permission. The petitioners also demanded Rs.50,000/- from the Principal for refraining from publishing the videos and photographs.

¶20

Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners had gone to the institution for reporting the incident of ‘Jaundice’ outbreak due to the unhygienic manner in which the hostel and its premises are maintained. This had provoked the

¶21

B.A.NO.4012 OF 2023

¶22

¶23

defacto complainant into lodging the false complaint. It is pointed out that accused Nos. 2 and 3 were granted anticipatory bail by the Sessions Court.

¶24

Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioners had, with the intention to extorting money, intimidated the Principal of the institution by showing the videos they had recorded. According to the Public Prosecutor, only custodial interrogation of the petitioners can bring out the truth.

¶25

The facts emanating from the FIR and the First Information Statement given an indication that the petitioners, in their capacity as media persons, had entered the campus and taken videos and photographs of the hostel and its surroundings without permission. This seems to have infuriated the concerned authorities and prompted them to file the complaint. Except an unsubstantiated allegation, there is nothing to hold that the petitioners, who are accredited journalists, had intimidated the office bearers and attempted to extort money for not

¶26

B.A.NO.4012 OF 2023

¶27

¶28

publishing the news. Being so, there is no requirement of subjecting the petitioners to custodial interrogation.

¶29

In the result, the bail application is allowed and the following directions issued;

¶30

(i) The petitioners shall surrender before the investigating officer within ten days. On surrender, they shall be interrogated and if arrested, released on bail, on executing bond for

¶31

Rs.25,000/- each with two solvent sureties each

¶32

for the like amount.

¶33

(ii) The petitioners shall co-operate with the investigation and appear before the investigating officer, as and when required.

Sd/-

V.G.ARUN

JUDGE

NB/13-7

B.A.NO.4012 OF 2023

APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 4012/2023

¶41

PETITIONERS’ ANNEXURES:

¶42

ANNEXURE -A1 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR NO. 444/2023 DATED 05.05.2023 ANNEXURE-A2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19.01.2023 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY, MALA GRAMA PANCHAYATH ANNEXURE-A3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. PH3-1208/2023/DHS DATED 28.01.2023 ISSUED BY THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES TO THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER, THRISSUR

¶43

RESPONDENT’S ANNEXURE: NIL

¶44

TRUE COPY

¶45

P.A. TO JUDGE

Sandeep S.U v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandeep S.U 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

Sunil Kumar.N Vs R.Ramachandran

A.Haris Vs State of Kerala

M/S Vodafone Idea Limited, Vs Secretary, Ministry of Communications

Devadas.G Vs Prasanna

Muthalif M.M Vs State of Kerala

Biju Vs the State of Kerala