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.

Praveen vs State of Kerala

Praveen vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Orders Decided Nov 25, 2020
~4 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1815387

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 Orders High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
Bail Appl./7218/2020

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Praveen

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....was with premeditation and not a sudden fight. it is pertinent to note that in the bail application filed by another accused, this court has already directed the trial court to start the trial of the case within a period of five months fromthe date of the order. it is also to be noted that while considering the bail application filed by the 8 th accused, liberty was given to him to approach the trial court if trial of the case has not been started within a period offive months from the date of the order. the said order was passed on 17.8.2020. as the case is ripe for trial, the learned sessions judge could start the trial without further delay. such being the case, if bail is granted tothe petitioner, the possibility to cause further delay in proceeding with the trial of the case cannot be ruled out and so as to avoid the same and to ensure a free and fair trial, i think that a further direction can be given to the petitioner to approach the trial court for his release on bail, if trial has not started as directed by this court in the bail application filed by the 8th accused as referred above.with the above observation, this application is dismissed. sd/- shircy v. judge sb appendix petitioner's annexuresannexure 1 : bail order in ba 86/2020 dated 05.02.2020 annexure 2 : bail order in ba 1552/2020 dated 13.03.2020 annexure 3 : bail order in ba 2558/2020 dated 05.05.2020 annexure 4 : bail order in ba 6288/2020 dated 19.10.2020 annexure 5 : bail oder in ba 5481/2020 dated 18.09.2020 annexure 6 : bail rder in b.a. 8985/2020 dated 11.12.2019respondents' annexures annexure r1 : the true copy of the order dated 17.08.2020 in bail application no. 5043/2020.

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V. WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 4TH AGRAHAYANA, 1942 Bail Appl..No.7218 OF 2020 CRIME NO.993/2019 OF Punnapra Police Station, Alappuzha PETITIONER/10TH ACCUSED: PRAVEEN, 28 YEARS, S/O. JOY, VADAKEYATTATHU VEEDU WARD NO 16 PUNNAPRA NORTH PANCHAYATH ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.MANU HARSHAKUMAR RESPONDENTS: 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALAM, ERNAKULAM. 2 CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALAPPUZHA SOUTH POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.SYAMJIRAM OTHER PRESENT: THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06-11-2020, THE COURT ON 25-11-2020 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

Dated this the 25th day of November 2020 Application for regular bail.

2. Petitioner is the 10th accused in Crime No. 993

of 2019 of Punnapra Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 326, 118, 302 and 201 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, now pending as S.C. No. 1 of 2020 before the Additional District and Sessions Court-II, Alappuzha.

3. The prosecution allegation is that on

19.08.2019 one Manu @ Kokan Manu was found missing.                              A
complaint         was    registered    by       his   relatives     before     the
police.          Thereafter investigation was conducted and CCTV

footage was taken and then it was revealed that the above said Manu was brutally attacked by accused Nos. 1 to 14 with the intention to murder him and because of the serious impact of the injuries sustained by him, he died and thereafter all the accused together had buried the body in the seashore and thereby committed the aforesaid offences.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is totally innocent. But he is undergoing undeserved incarceration for the last 411 days.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed this application and submitted that the petitioner is involved in 8 other cases and is having criminal background. It is also submitted that the star witness of the prosecution is a poor man residing near the seashore

where the incident occurred. The prosecution has also expressed an apprehension that in case bail is granted to the petitioner, there is every possibility to cause threat to the life of the star witness. So, the learned Public Prosecutor has sought for dismissal of the bail application.

6. Now the case is pending before the Sessions

Court for trial. The apprehension expressed by the learned Public Prosecutor appears to be genuine as the incident would reveal the existing feud between gangsters. It prima facie appears that the attack on the deceased was with premeditation and not a sudden fight. It is pertinent to note that in the Bail Application filed by another accused, this court has already directed the trial court to start the trial of the case within a period of five months from

the date of the order. It is also to be noted that while considering the Bail Application filed by the 8 th accused, liberty was given to him to approach the trial court if trial of the case has not been started within a period of

five months from the date of the order.         The said order was
passed on 17.8.2020.      As the case is ripe for trial, the
learned    Sessions   Judge   could   start    the      trial   without
further delay.    Such being the case, if bail is granted to

the petitioner, the possibility to cause further delay in proceeding with the trial of the case cannot be ruled out and so as to avoid the same and to ensure a free and fair trial, I think that a further direction can be given to the petitioner to approach the trial court for his release on bail, if trial has not started as directed by this court in the Bail Application filed by the 8th accused as referred above.

With the above observation, this application is dismissed. Sd/- SHIRCY V. JUDGE sb APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES

ANNEXURE 1 :    BAIL ORDER IN BA 86/2020 DATED 05.02.2020
ANNEXURE 2 :    BAIL ORDER IN BA 1552/2020 DATED 13.03.2020
ANNEXURE 3 :    BAIL ORDER IN BA 2558/2020 DATED 05.05.2020
ANNEXURE 4 :    BAIL ORDER IN BA 6288/2020 DATED 19.10.2020
ANNEXURE 5 :    BAIL ODER IN BA 5481/2020 DATED 18.09.2020
ANNEXURE 6 :    BAIL RDER IN B.A. 8985/2020 DATED 11.12.2019

RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES ANNEXURE R1 : THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17.08.2020 IN BAIL APPLICATION NO. 5043/2020.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial