High Court Kerala High Court

Sunil Kumar vs State Of Kerala on 26 May, 2008

Kerala High Court
Sunil Kumar vs State Of Kerala on 26 May, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl..No. 3340 of 2008()


1. SUNIL KUMAR, S/O.SURENDRAN, AGED 26
                      ...  Petitioner
2. JAYASENAN @ MANIKKUTTAN, AGED 40,

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.DILEEP P.PILLAI

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA

 Dated :26/05/2008

 O R D E R
                                    K. HEMA, J.
                 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                              B.A.No. 3340 of 2008
                 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                   Dated this the 27th day of May, 2008

                                       O R D E R

Application for anticipatory bail.

2. Petitioners are accused 1 and 2 in the crime. The offences alleged

are under sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324 and 308 read with section 149

IPC and section 27 of the Arms Act. According to the prosecution, on 23-2-

2008 at about 10 p.m. the petitioners along with three others armed with

deadly weapons unlawfully assembled together and committed various

offences against the defacto-complainant.

3. This application is opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor. It is

submitted that weapons used for the crime are to be recovered and custodial

interrogation of the petitioners is also required.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was a

quarrel between two groups on the allegation of abusing women who came

in temple festival. Nothing more had happened. It is also submitted that

there is a rivalry between the petitioners and the defacto-complainant on

account of some other matter. Hence, this case is falsely foisted against the

petitioners.

BA 3340/08 -2-

5. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied of the submission that the

petitioners are to be interrogated in custody and weapons are to be

recovered. Hence, if anticipatory bail is granted, it will adversely affect the

investigation. Therefore, the application is dismissed.

K. HEMA,
JUDGE.

mn.