Allowed

Rajesh v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC10 Feb 2023Bail Appl./574/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court granted anticipatory bail to two accused in IPC and Arms Act offences. The court noted that while the allegations involved serious charges, the possibility of bailable offences under IPC and unproved facts regarding the Arms Act necessitated release on conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted on conditions of surrender within ten days, cooperation with investigation, non-intimidation of witnesses, and execution of bonds.

Rajesh Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023 / 21ST MAGHA, 1944
BAIL APPL. NO. 574 OF 2023

¶5

CRIME NO.37/2023 OF MEDICAL COLLEGE POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶6

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1& 2:

¶7

1RAJESH
S/O.SASI, AGED 45 YEARS, TC 13/948,
THOTTUVARAMBIL HOUSE, KANNAMMOOLA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695 011.
2SABU.Y
S/O.YESODHARAN, AGED 52 YEARS, VALIYA VILAKATH VEEDU,
ULLOOR, MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 011.
BY ADVS.
SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY
AMJATH A.R
RAHUL S.NATH

¶8

RESPONDENT/STATE:

¶9

STATE OF KERALA

¶10

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

¶11

BY SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.G.MANU

¶12

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
10.02.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

BAIL APPL. NO. 574 OF 2023 2

¶14

ORDER

¶15

Dated this the 10^th day of February, 2023.

¶16

This is an application for anticipatory bail, filed by accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.37/2023 of Medical College Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram.

¶17

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned

¶18

Public Prosecutor.

¶19

The prosecution case is that, at about 11.45 hrs on 10.1.2023, the accused herein brandished a knife against the de facto complainant, due to animosity arose out of an occurrence, where the de facto complainant requested the 3^rd accused to move his vehicle to facilitate parking of the vehicle of the de facto complainant. On the said premise, prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 323, 506(ii) and Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

¶20

It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are innocent. He also submitted that offences under the Arms Act

¶21

will not attract in the facts of this case, since place of occurrence is not proved

¶22

BAIL APPL. NO. 574 OF 2023 3

¶23

to be a notified area, under the Arms Act. Therefore, he pressed for grant of anticipatory bail.

¶24

The learned Public Prosecutor placed the case diary as such, highlighting the involvement of the petitioners in previous crimes, starting from 1994 onwards. It is submitted that the 1^st petitioner got involved in 12 crimes and the 2^nd petitioner got involved in 19 crimes. Excluding these criminal antecedents, the prosecution allegation is that the accused brandished a knife and the allegation is otherwise is commission of offences punishable under Sections 323 and 294(b) of the Indian Penal Code, which are bailable. Whether the plea of occurrence is a notified area under the Arms Act, could not be gathered from the available records in the case diary produced by the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶25

Having considered the above factual aspects, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioners herein. Therefore, the petitioners can be enlarged on bail on the following conditions:

¶26

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 and recover the knife. In the event of their arrest, the Investigating Officer shall produce the petitioners before the jurisdictional court on the date of surrender itself.

¶27

BAIL APPL. NO. 574 OF 2023 4

¶28

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.

¶29

iii. The petitioners shall co-operate with investigation and shall be made available for interrogation and for the purpose of investigation, as and when the Investigating Officer directs so.

¶30

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

¶31

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.

Sd/-

A. BADHARUDEEN JUDGE

//TRUE COPY//

PA TO JUDGE

Rajesh v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh 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

Mohammed Hassan K. a. Vs State of Kerala

Saju Sony Vs State of Kerala

Baiju K.T Vs State of Kerala

Zuhara Vs State of Kerala

Rejin R.L Vs State of Kerala

Manjesh Vs State of Kerala