Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Ramesh Kumar vs State of Kerala

Ramesh Kumar vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Jan 28, 2022
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1507905

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Kerala High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
Bail Appl./7360/2021

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Ramesh Kumar

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....district alleging commission of offences under sections 341, 323, 506 (ii), 365, 342, 324 read with 34 of the indian penal code.2. the allegation against the petitioner is that on 16-07-2021 accusednos.2 to 4 due to previous enmity with the de facto complainant assaulted and abducted the de facto complainant and confined him in a shed belonging to the petitioner.3. the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitionerhas absolutely no role in the matter. it is submitted that the petitioner had a close acquaintance with the de facto complainant who borrowed money from him numerous occasions. it is submitted that the vehicle of the petitioner was taken away by the de facto complainant and sold for dismantling without the consent of the petitioner. it is submitted that when the petitioner questioned the de facto complainant about the same, fearing that he would be implicated in crime, the present crime has been registered against the petitioner. it is submitted that the only non-bailable offence is alleged is that under section 365 of the ipc and at any rate there is nothing to show that the de factocomplainant was confined in any premise belonging to the petitioner. reference is made in this regard to annexure-2. b.a. no.7360/2021 -3-4. i have heard the learned public prosecutor also. the learnedpublic prosecutor submits that there are clear allegations against the petitioner and that owing to some financial dispute the petitioner and the other accused confined the de facto complainant and thereby they committed the offences alleged against them.5. having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case andconsidering the nature of the allegations against the petitioner and taking note of the fact that custodial interrogation of the petitioner may not be necessary for the purpose of any investigation, i am of the view that the petitioner can be granted bail. in the result this bail application is allowed. it is directed that the petitioner shall.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P. FRIDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 8TH MAGHA, 1943 BAIL APPL. NO. 7360 OF 2021 Crime No.2279/2021 of Neyyattinkara Police Station PETITIONER/1st ACCUSED: RAMESH KUMAR AGED 31 YEARS S/O RAVEENDRAN, RAMESH BHAVAN,VANDANOOR, PERUMPAZHATHOOR.P.O, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695126. BY ADV S.NIKHIL SANKAR

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT/STATE: STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. OTHER PRESENT: SMT. SEETHA .S. (SR.PP) THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28.01.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: B.A. No.7360/2021 -2-

ORDER

The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.2279/2021 of Neyyattinkara Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram District alleging commission of offences under Sections 341, 323, 506 (ii), 365, 342, 324 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The allegation against the petitioner is that on 16-07-2021 accused

Nos.2 to 4 due to previous enmity with the de facto complainant assaulted and abducted the de facto complainant and confined him in a shed belonging to the petitioner.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner

has absolutely no role in the matter. It is submitted that the petitioner had a close acquaintance with the de facto complainant who borrowed money from him numerous occasions. It is submitted that the vehicle of the petitioner was taken away by the de facto complainant and sold for dismantling without the consent of the petitioner. It is submitted that when the petitioner questioned the de facto complainant about the same, fearing that he would be implicated in crime, the present crime has been registered against the petitioner. It is submitted that the only non-bailable offence is alleged is that under Section 365 of the IPC and at any rate there is nothing to show that the de facto

complainant was confined in any premise belonging to the petitioner. Reference is made in this regard to Annexure-2. B.A. No.7360/2021 -3-

4. I have heard the learned Public Prosecutor also. The learned

Public Prosecutor submits that there are clear allegations against the petitioner and that owing to some financial dispute the petitioner and the other accused confined the de facto complainant and thereby they committed the offences alleged against them.

5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and

considering the nature of the allegations against the petitioner and taking note of the fact that custodial interrogation of the petitioner may not be necessary for the purpose of any investigation, I am of the view that the petitioner can be granted bail. In the result this bail application is allowed. It is directed that the petitioner shall be released on bail, subject to the following conditions:-

(i) The petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court;

(ii) The Petitioner shall report before the Investigating officer in Crime No.2279/2021 of Neyyattinkara Police Station on every Saturday at 11 a.m until filing of final report;

(iii) The petitioner shall not attempt to interfere with the investigation, influence or intimidate the de facto complainant or any witness in B.A. No.7360/2021 -4- Crime No.2279/2021 of Neyyattinkara Police Station;

(iv) The petitioner shall not involve in any other crime while on bail. If any of the aforesaid conditions are violated, the Investigating officer in Crime No.2279/2021 of Neyyattinkara Police Station may file an application before the jurisdictional Court for cancellation of bail. Sd/- GOPINATH P. JUDGE AMG

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial