Partly allowed

Grithul Roshan v. the Sub Inspector of Police,Balussery Police Station,Kozhikode

Kerala HC7 Nov 2017Bail Appl./6821/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court rejected anticipatory bail application for accused charged with assault and attempt to murder on IPC sections 341, 323, 324, 294(b), 506(ii), 307 and 34. Court denied bail due to corroborative medical evidence and nature of allegations but advised surrender within ten days for interrogation.

What did the court decide?

Issued directions to surrendered within ten days for interrogation and subsequent production; bail petition adjourned to merits.

Grithul Roshan Vs the Sub Inspector of Police,Balussery… — Anticipatory Bail | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017/16TH KARTHIKA, 1939

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 6821 of 2017 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 620/2017 OF BALUSSERY POLICE STATION,KOZHIKODE DISTRICT

¶7

--------------

¶8

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:

¶9

1. GRITHUL ROSHAN, AGED 20 YEARS, S/O. VIJAYAN, GRITHUL HOUSE, P.O NADUVANNUR, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶10

2. AJILKRISHNA T.K., AGED 25 YEARS, S/O. BALAKRISHNAN, THANIKANDIYIL HOUSE, P.O KOKKALLUR, BALUSSERY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.SUNNY MATHEW

¶12

RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANTS & STATE:

¶13

1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, BALUSSERY POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT -673 001

¶14

2. STATE OF KERALA, (RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN -682 031

¶15

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AJITH MURALI

¶16

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07-11-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

sts

¶18

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., J

¶19

B.A. No.6821 of 2017

¶20

Dated this the 7^th day of November, 2017

¶21

ORDER

¶22

1.This petition is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶23

2.The petitioners herein are the accused Nos. 1 and 2 in Crime No.620 of 2017 of Balussery Police Station registered alleging offence punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 294(b), 506(ii) and 307 read with 34 of the IPC.

¶24

3.It appears that on 3.9.2017 at about 8.45 p.m., the de facto complainant and his friends were travelling on a scooter. The prosecution alleges that the accused followed them in a car and when the petitioners reached in front of the Panayi Ayurveda Hospital, the de facto complainant and his friend were wrongfully restrained. According to the prosecution, the victim was assaulted

¶25

BA 6821/2017 2

¶26

with a stick and he was kicked on various parts of his body.

¶27

4.The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that this is a pure case of road rage and the de facto complainant and his friends were aggressors. It is further submitted that injury sustained by the victim and his friends are very minor and an offence under section 307 would not be attracted. It is prayed that necessary directions be issued as custodial interrogation of the petitioners are not required in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶28

5.The learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand opposed the said submission and submitted that the de facto complainant was assaulted with a wooden log and he has sustained injuries on the temporo parietal area and also a mild head injury. He was admitted on 3.9.2017 and was discharged on 5.9.2017.

¶29

6.I have considered the submissions advanced and have

¶30

BA 6821/2017 3

¶31

gone through the case diary as well. I am unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel that the petitioners are totally innocent in the matter for the medical evidence corroborates the case of the

¶32

prosecution. The injuries sustained by the victim cannot be said to be minor in nature. At this stage a detailed probe into the materials are not warranted.

¶33

7.Having regard to the nature of the allegations, the nature of injury sustained and other facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that this Court will not be justified in granting relief to the petitioners. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that necessary directions be issued to the petitioners to surrender before the investigating officer. Having regard to the above, if the petitioners are so advised, they may surrender before the Investigating Officer, within ten days from today. If they so surrender, they shall be interrogated and thereafter shall be produced before the

¶34

BA 6821/2017

¶35

¶36

learned Magistrate having jurisdiction, on the same day itself. If an application for bail is preferred, the same shall

¶37

be considered and orders shall be passed expeditiously

¶38

and on its merits.

¶39

Sd/RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., JUDGE

¶40

vps 8/11

¶41

BA 6821/2017 5

Grithul Roshan v. the Sub Inspector of Police,Balussery Police Station,Kozhikode

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Grithul Roshan v. the Sub Inspector of Police,Balussery Police Station,Kozhikode

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Peter Rosalain Vs State of Kerala

Sajeer Vs State of Kerala

Saji Vs State of Kerala

P.a.Joshy Vs State of Kerala

Muhammed Hussain Vs State of Kerala

Balagopal Vs State of Kerala