V. RAMKUMAR & Ors. v. RAMKUMAR
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 34, 143, 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 394, 427, 452, 506(1)
- Arms Act, 1959
Key paragraphs
- Para 77. It is too early to accept the petitioner's contention that hewas falsely implicated in Crime Nos. 720 and 728 consequent on theoccurrence in Crime No. 679 of 2006. Going by the facts of the abovecases, the petitioner is a formidable person. At this stage…
Judgment
V. RAMKUMAR, J.* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *Bail Application Nos.549,553 & 554 of 2007* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Dated, this the 1st day of February 2007ORDERThe common petitioner in these applications seeks regular bail. In B.A. 549/07 he is the 2nd accused in Crime No. 728 of 2006 of Kayamkulam Police Station for offences punishable under Sections143, 147, 148, 323 and 324 read with Sec. 149 I.P.C. and Sec. .5 (1)(a) and 27(1) of Arms Act, 1959.
The occurrence in this case took place on 26-12-2006 at9.30 p.m. involving altogether 5 accused persons. De factocomplainant in the case is alleged to have attacked with a sword byA1 and with a absorbent's by the 2nd accused, the petitioner herein.
In B.A. 553 of 2006 the petitioner is the first accused in Crime No. 720 of 2006 of Kayamkulam Police Station for an offencepunishable under Sec. 394 read with Sec. 34 I.P.C. . The occurrenceallegedly took place on 20-12-2006 at 2 p.m. in which the petitionerwho was a pillion rider of a motor cycle driven by A2 in the case isalleged to have snatched cash worth Rs. 1650/- and a mobile phonefrom the de facto complainant.
In B.A. 554 of 2007 petitioner is the 7th accused in Crime Bail Application Nos.549,553 & 554 of 2007-:2:-No. 679 of 2006 of the same police station for offences punishableunder sections 143, 147, 148, 452, 324, 427 and 506 (1) read with Sec. 149 I.P.C. The occurrence in this case is alleged to have takenplace on 8-12-2006, when the petitioner and others are alleged tohave tried to forcibly take a girl by name Sumi, who was loved byanother person.
The petitioner was arrested on 28-12-2006 in connectionwith Crime No. 679 of 2006.
The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application.
It is too early to accept the petitioner's contention that hewas falsely implicated in Crime Nos. 720 and 728 consequent on theoccurrence in Crime No. 679 of 2006. Going by the facts of the abovecases, the petitioner is a formidable person. At this stage ofinvestigation, if the petitioner is released on bail, he will interferewith the smooth investigation of the case. I am not inclined to grantbail to the petitioner. This application is accordingly dismissed . V. RAMKUMAR, Bail Application Nos.549,553 & 554 of 2007-:3:- (JUDGE)ani.
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 34, 143, 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 394, 427, 452, 506(1); Arms Act, 1959.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Kerala High Court, on 01 Feb 2007. The bench was V RAMKUMAR.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.