Sujith S. v. State Of Kerala
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD THURSDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2015/9TH ASWINA, 1937 Bail Appl..No. 5627 of 2015 () ------------------------------- CRIME NO. 1766/2015 OF ATTINGAL POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ---------------- PETITIONERS/ACCUSED :
--------------------------------------
1. SUJITH S., AGED 25 YEARS S/O.SURENDRAN, PANIKKAKUDI PUTHENVEEDU, NANTHAIVANAM NEDUMPARAMBU P.O., NAGAROOR VILLAGE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.
2. SHYJU A., AGED 31 YEARS S/O.APPU, SHYJU MANDIRAM, NANTHAIVANAM NAGAROOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.
3. SULFIKAR A., AGED 26 YEARS S/O.ALI AKHAR, ERAMATH VEEDU, NANTHAIVANAM NAGAROOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.
4. SUMESH S., AGED 24 YEARS S/O.SURENDRAN, PANIKKAKUDI PUTHENVEEDU, NANTHAIVANAM NEDUMPARAMBU P.O., NAGAROOR VILLAGE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.
5. AMAL L., AGED 17 YEARS S/O.LAMBODAREN, CHOTHIBHAVAN, NANTHAIVANAM NEDUMPARAMBU P.O., NAGAROOR VILLAGE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.K.SIJU SMT.S.SEETHA RESPONDENT :
----------------------- STATE OF KERALA THROUGH THE S.I.OF POLICE, ATTINGAL POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. LALIZA T.Y.
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01-10-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Mn
A.HARIPRASAD, J.
-------------------------------------- B.A. No.5627 of 2015 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of October, 2015
ORDER
Petitioners are accused 1 to 5 in Crime No.1766 of 2015 of Attingal Police Station registered for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 294(b), 324, 326 and 308 of the Indian Penal Code. 2.
Prosecution case is that on 29.08.2015 at 7.15 p.m., the accused persons as members of an unlawful assembly, in furtherance of their common object, restrained the autorickshaw driven by the defacto complainant. After pulling him out, he was abused and attacked by using iron pipe. The defacto complainant sustained fracture to his forearm. Accused 2 and 3 beat him with a stick and accused 4 and 5 pushed him and threatened to kill him.
Considering the materials in the case diary and the nature of allegations, I am of the view that custodial interrogation of the petitioners is essential in this case. Hence the bail application is dismissed. A. HARIPRASAD, JUDGE.
cks