Allowed

Shahil v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC21 Mar 2018Bail Appl./1100/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 CrPC. Finding merit in the petitioner's claim of being roped in later due to discrepancies in the FIR and medical records, the court granted bail subject to standard conditions including cooperation with investigation and surrender of passport.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; petitioner released on bail with a bond of Rs.50,000 plus two sureties on standard conditions including cooperation and passport surrender.

Shahil Vs State of Kerala — Cheating and Forgery | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH 2018 / 30TH PHALGUNA, 1939

¶5

Bail Appl..No.1100 of 2018 ------------(CRIME NO.221/2018 OF CHADAYAMANAGALAM POLICE STATION, KOLLAM)

¶6

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶7

SHAHIL, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O. SASINULABDEEN K.M, RESIDING AT SHAMNIVAS, ARKANNOOR.P.O, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691533. BY ADVS.SRI.C.V.MANUVILSAN SMT.K.VIDYA SRI.VINODE V. LUKA

¶8

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT/STATE:

¶9

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHADAYAMANGALAM POLICE STATION, KOLLAM/RURAL DISTRICT, REPRESENTED THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA-682031.

¶10

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. AJITH MURALI

¶11

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21-03-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶12

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., J

¶13

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = B.A. No. 1100 of 2018

¶14

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 21^st day of March, 2018

¶15

ORDER

¶16

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

¶17

The petitioner herein is the 1^st accused in Crime No.221 of 2018 of the Chadayamangalam Police Station, registered under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 294(b), 323, 324, 308, 506 and 427 r/w. 149 of the IPC.

¶18

The prosecution allegation is that, on 3.2.2018 at about 4.15 p.m., the informant was invited to Karalikonam by the 1^st accused and when he reached there along with his friend one Vishnu, he was wrongfully restrained by 12 persons who had come in 6 bikes. He was allegedly taken to an isolated place and thereafter the 1^st accused is alleged to have assaulted him with a helmet causing injuries. The rest of the accused are alleged to have clouted him causing injuries.

¶19

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted

¶20

BA.1100/18

¶21

-:2:-

¶22

that the allegations are clearly false and would be falsified by the prosecution records. According to the learned counsel, the alleged incident took place on 3.2.2018 at 4.15 p.m., and the father of the informant is a retired police officer. The Crime was registered only on 5.2.2018. It is further submitted that in the F.I.Statement, the informant had mentioned that he was assaulted with a helmet by a person by name Sukhail. However, when the crime was registered, the petitioner herein, whose name is Sahil, is arrayed as the 1^st accused and the said overt act has been attributed to the petitioner. The FIR reaches the court only on the 7^th of February. It is further urged that in the FI statement, in more than one places, the name of the principal accused is stated as Sukhail. It is further urged that there is discrepancy in the wound certificate as well and the said discrepancy would tell upon the falsity of the prosecution version.

¶23

The learned Public Prosecutor has very strenuously opposed

¶24

the prayer. It is submitted that the name of the petitioner

¶25

was disclosed by Vishnu, the friend of the informant, and

¶26

BA.1100/18

¶27

-:3:-

¶28

also the persons of the locality who were questioned later by the police. Insofar as the discrepancy in the wound certificate is concerned, it is submitted that the certificate reveals that on 3.2.2018 the victim was admitted in the JOSCO Hospital at Edappon. However, the certificate was issued on 5.2.2018 and hence, the said date is shown in the certificate.

¶29

I have considered the submissions advanced and have gone through the materials on record.

¶30

The incident allegedly took place on 3.2.2018. The main overt acts are alleged against a person by name Sukhail, who had assaulted the victim using a helmet. As to how in the FIR, which report is prepared immediately after recording the FI Statement, the name of the petitioner finds a place as the 1^st accused is a mystery. Vishnu is seen questioned only much later and his 161 statement recorded by another officer does not contain any date. The witnesses were also questioned much later. Furthermore, the FIR reaches the court only on 7.2.2017, about 4 days after the incident and two days after the registration of the FIR.

¶31

-:4:-

¶32

BA.1100/18

¶33

Prima facie, I find merit in the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that he was roped in later for extraneous reasons. In that view of the matter, I am of the view that the petitioner has made out a case for invocation of discretionary powers of this Court. It is not reported that the petitioner is a person with prior criminal antecedents or that it would be difficult to secure his presence at the stage of trial .

¶34

In the result, this petition will stand allowed. In the event of arrest of the petitioner in the instaht Crime, he shall be released on bail by the officer effecting the arrest on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum. The above order shall be subject to the following conditions:

¶35

i) The petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation and shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Saturdays between 10 a.m. and 11 a.m., for a period of two months or till final report is filed, whichever is earlier.

¶36

ii) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/ her from disclosing such facts to

¶37

BA.1100/18

¶38

-:5:-

¶39

the court or to any police officer.

¶40

iii) The petitioner shall not commit any similar offence while on bail.

¶41

iv) The petitioner shall surrender his passport before the court below or if he does not have one, he shall file an affidavit to that effect within five days of his release. Application for release of the passport, if any, shall be considered by the Trial court at the appropriate stage.

¶42

v) The petitioner shall not leave the State of Kerala without seeking previous permission from the court having jurisdiction.

¶43

In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the jurisdictional Court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation, if any, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law.

¶44

Sd/Raja Vijayaraghavan V., Judge

¶45

krj.21/3

¶46

//true copy//

¶47

P.A to Judge

Shahil v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shahil v. State of Kerala

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

Mujeeb Rehman Vs State of Kerala

O.J.Poulose` Vs Sub Inspector of Police

Ismail E.R Vs State

Praful G.N Vs State of Kerala

Pradeep Kora Vs State of Kerala

Don Thomas Vs State of Kerala