Dhanraj v. State Of Kerala

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.ABRAHAM MATHEW THURSDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF JUNE 2015/14TH JYAISHTA, 1937 Bail Appl..No. 2360 of 2015 ------------------------------- CRIME NO. 308/2013 OF BEKAL POLICE STATION, KASARGOD DISTRICT. ..........

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED 1 TO 4 & 6:

------------------------------------------------------

1. DHANRAJ, AGED 29 YEARS, S/O.NARAYANAN, KEEKAN PO, KEEKAN, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

2. ANANDARAMAN, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O.SHANTHAPPAYA, R/AT KAMALANILAYAM, KEEKAN P.O, KEEKAN, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

3. AJITH, AGED 23 YEARS,S/O.KUNHIKANNAN, KEEKAN P.O, KEEKAN, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

4. SREEJITH, AGED 28 YEARS, S/O.KUNHIKANNAN, KEEKAN P.O, KEEKAN, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

5. MURALI, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O.KUNHIKANNAN, KEEKAN P.O, KEEKAN, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

BY SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER (SENIOR ADVOCATE) ADVS. SRI.ANEESH JOSEPH SMT.DENNIS VARGHESE RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT & STATE:

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

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.S.SREEJITH THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04-06-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

mbr/

K.ABRAHAM MATHEW J.

--------------------------------------- B.A. NO.2360 OF 2015 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of June, 2014

ORDER

Petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

2.

Petitioners are alleged to have committed the offences under Sections 143,147,148,324,308,506(ii) r/w 149 of IPC. 3.

Prosecution case is that violating the order of injunction passed by civil court the petitioners did some activities in the property involved in the civil suit and when the victims came to the spot the petitioners assaulted them with deadly weapons like iron rod, stick etc. causing them very serious injuries. 4.

Heard.

5.

The victim sustained extensive injury on the scalp. There were other injuries also. The nature of the injuries makes probable the prosecution case that the attack was with weapons like iron rod and stick. The First Information Statement shows that at midnight the petitioners happened to be at the place of occurrence with the intention of doing something violating the order of injunction. It is not at all proper to grant them anticipatory bail. In the result, this application is dismissed. K.ABRAHAM MATHEW JUDGE pm