Seljith v. State Of Kerala
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.KEMAL PASHA TUESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF MARCH 2015/12TH PHALGUNA, 1936 Bail Appl..No. 956 of 2015 () ------------------------------ CRIME NO. 7/2015 OF MAYYIL POLICE STATION, KANNUR DISTRICT ------------- PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED 2, 6 & 7:
------------------------------------------------------
1. SELJITH, S/O. SELVARAJ,AGED 18 YEARS, K.P. NIVAS, 10TH MILE, MAYYIL, KANNUR.
2. SREYAS,S/O. MANI, AGED 22 YEARS, KARAKANDY HOUSE, 10TH MILE, MAYYIL, KANNUR.
3. SUDEESH,S/O. NARAYANAN, AGED 28 YEARS, KANHAN HOUSE, 10TH MILE, MAYYIL, KANNUR.
BY ADV. SRI.K.RAJESH SUKUMARAN RESPONDENT/STATE:
------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.S.SREEJITH THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03-03-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
sts
B.KEMAL PASHA, J.
............................................................ B.A. No.956 of 2015 .............................................................. Dated this the 3rd day of March, 2015.
O R D E R
Petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
2. Petitioners are A2,A6 and A7 in Crime No.7/2015 of the Mayyil Police Station, Kannur District registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 324, 506(1) and 308 read with Section 34 IPC.
3. The allegation against the petitioner and the other accused is that on 01.01.2015 at 1.30 p.m., they formed themselves into an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons like iron rods, wrongfully restrained the de facto complainant and his friends, out of political enmity, and attacked them with iron rods. It is alleged that the petitioner and the other accused beat the de facto complainant with iron rods and hit him with granite stones, thereby causing serious injuries.
4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor.
5. The contents of the wound certificate of the petitioner which finds a place among the records in the C.D reveal that the de facto complainant has sustained very serious injuries and he has almost lost the vision of his left eye. The investigation of the case is not over. Considering the seriousness of the allegations against the petitioners, and present stage of the investigation, I am satisfied that this is not a fit case wherein anticipatory bail can be granted. At the same time, in the absence of any criminal antecedents on their part, an opportunity can be granted to the petitioners to surrender before the investigating officer and to co-operate with the investigation. In the result, this bail application is dismissed. At the same time, if so advised, the petitioners may surrender before the investigating officer within ten days from today and in such case, the investigating officer can interrogate the petitioners, effect recovery if any, and conduct the investigation and produce
the petitioners without delay before the concerned Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, where the petitioners can move for bail. In such case, the learned Magistrate shall pass appropriate orders, preferably on the same day itself, provided advance notice on such application has been given to the Assistant Public Prosecutor also.
B.KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE smm