Rahul vs State of Kerala

RAHUL vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Orders Decided Jan 31, 2019

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1851908

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

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1851908
Court: Kerala Orders High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr. Justice Sunil Thomas
Decided On: Jan 31, 2019
Case Number: Bail Appl./305/2019

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

RAHUL

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....on 31.01.2019, the court on the same day passed the following:orderthe petitioners are accused nos.1 and 4 in crime no.1822/2018 of karunagappally police station, kollam district, for offences punishable under sections 143, 147, 148, 450, 427, 341, 323, 324, 326, 307 and 395 of ipc and section 27 of arms act.2. the allegation of the prosecution is that on26.11.2018 at 11.45 pm., the petitioners along with two other persons trespassed into a bar after it was closed and attacked the staff of the bar, who was counting the currency notes. they forcefully took rs.50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand only) and the first accused inflicted injurieson the defacto complainant with sword. the second petitioner, who is arrayed as the fourth accused sprayed pepper powder on the face of the defacto complainant. all the remaining accused also joined in attacking the defacto complainant. the petitioners were arrested on 31.12.2018 and are in custody since then. they seek bail.3. the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent and they are not involved in the above crime.4. it seems that the allegations against thepetitioners are very serious. it is also reported by the learned public prosecutor that the first petitioner has criminal antecedents and is involved in four other criminal cases. considering the nature of allegations, the mode of executing it and the manner in which it was executed, i am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners at present. bail application fails and is dismissed.sd/- sunil thomas, judge r.av //true copy// pa to judge

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS THURSDAY ,THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY 2019 / 11TH MAGHA, 1940 AGAINST THE ORDER IN CMP 3960/2018 of JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - I, KARUNAGAPPALLY CRIME NO. 1822/2018 OF KARUNAAGAPALLY POLICE STATION , KOLLAM PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 & 4: 1 RAHUL, AGED 25 YEARS S/O.BABU, ADHINAD THEK, KATTIKADAV P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY. 2 ARUN, AGED 22 YEARS S/O.SURESH, ARUN BHAVANAM, ALLAPAD P.O., ALLUMKADAV, KARUNAGAPALLY. BY ADV. SRI.M.R.SASITH RESPONDENT/S: 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031. 2 THE SUB INSPECTOR KARUNAGAPPALLY POLICE STATION, KOLLAM - 690 004. SR.PP C.K SURESH THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31.01.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

The petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 4 in Crime No.1822/2018 of Karunagappally Police station, Kollam District, for offences punishable under sections 143, 147, 148, 450, 427, 341, 323, 324, 326, 307 and 395 of IPC and section 27 of Arms Act.

2. The allegation of the prosecution is that on

26.11.2018 at 11.45 pm., the petitioners along with two other persons trespassed into a bar after it was closed and attacked the staff of the bar, who was counting the currency notes. They forcefully took Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) and the first accused inflicted injuries

on the defacto complainant with sword. The second petitioner, who is arrayed as the fourth accused sprayed pepper powder on the face of the defacto complainant. All the remaining accused also joined in attacking the defacto complainant. The petitioners were arrested on 31.12.2018 and are in custody since then. They seek bail.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent and they are not involved in the above crime.

4. It seems that the allegations against the

petitioners are very serious. It is also reported by the learned Public Prosecutor that the first petitioner has criminal antecedents and is involved in four other criminal cases. Considering the nature of allegations, the mode of executing it and the manner in which it was executed, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners at present. Bail application fails and is dismissed.

Sd/- SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE R.AV //True Copy// PA to Judge

Same Court & Year Kerala Orders · 2019 Same Parties RAHUL vs State of Kerala Same Judge Honourable Mr. Justice Sunil Thomas