Allowed

Lithin v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC5 Nov 2018Bail Appl./4570/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court considered a bail application filed by two accused persons facing charges under sections 341, 294(b), 323, 324, and 326 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The court noted a version that the defacto complainant had inflicted serious injuries on the petitioners. Finding that custodial interrogation was not justified, the court granted anticipatory bail.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted on bond of Rs. 40,000 each with two sureties, subject to conditions of interrogation, periodic appearance, and non-interference with witnesses.

Lithin Vs the State of Kerala — Anticipatory Bail | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

¶4

MONDAY ,THE 05TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 14TH KARTHIKA, 1940 Bail Appl..No. 4570 of 2018

¶5

CRIME NO. 1130/2018 OF Sasthamcotta Police Station , Kollam

¶6

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 & 2:

¶7

1 LITHIN AGED 20 YEARS, S/O. THULASI, RESIDING AT CHIRAYIL VEEDU, NEAR PATTUPURACKAL VELAKOMBIL CHIRA, NORTH MYNAGAPPALLY MURI, MYNAGAPPALLY VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶8

2 LIJO AGED 23 YEARS, S/O. THULASI, RESIDING AT CHIRAYIL VEEDU, NEAR PATTUPURACKAL VELAKOMBIL CHIRA, NORTH MYNAGAPPALLY MURI, MYNAGAPPALLY VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.MANU RAMACHANDRAN SRI.M.KIRANLAL SRI.R.RAJESH (VARKALA) SRI.T.S.SARATH

¶10

RESPONDENT/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶11

THE STATE OF KERALA THROUGH THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, SASTHAMKOTTA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA.

¶12

OTHER PRESENT:

¶13

PP AJITH MURALI

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.11.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

B.A.4570/18

ORDER

Petitioners are accused 1 and 2 in Crime No.1130 of 2018 of Sasthamcotta Police Station for offences punishable under sections 341, 294(b), 323, 324, 326 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶19

The crux of the prosecution allegation is that, on 30.05.2018 at about 5.30p.m, while the defacto complainant was proceeding in a motor cycle, petitioners herein waylaid them, wrongfully restrained them and caused bodily injuries on the defacto complainant and his friend. They were taken to the hospital. Annexure-A1 FIR was laid and crime was registered. Apprehending arrest, accused have approached this Court.

¶20

The version of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that, in fact, on the same day and time, while the petitioners herein were returning on their scooter, defacto complainant and others wrongfully restrained them and assaulted. Serious injuries were inflicted on the face of the petitioners. It was stated that the first petitioner was taken to the District Hospital, from where, she was referred to the Medical College Hospital. Annexure-A3 is the FIR registered at the instance of the first petitioner. The body note attached to it shows that, his right eye was found injured. This is supported by Annexure-A2, CT scan report, which shows that, there is a fracture of a medial wall of right orbit. On the other hand, defacto complainant in the

¶21

B.A.4570/18

¶22

¶23

present case had sustained four abrasions only.

¶24

Having considered this, it cannot be straight away said that the petitioners herein inflicted serious injuries on the defacto complainant. Hence, I do not feel that, custodial interrogation of the petitioners herein will be justified. Having considered this, I am inclined to grant the benefit of anticipatory bail to the petitioners subject to the following conditions.

¶25

(i) Petitioners shall appear before the investigation officer within ten days from today and shall undergo interrogation. Thereafter, if they are proposed to be arrested, they shall be released on bail on executing a bond for a sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand only) each with two sureties for the like sum each.

¶26

(ii) They shall appear before the investigating officer on all Saturdays between 9 am and 10 am for the period of two months, from the date of execution of the bond.

¶27

(iii) They shall not threaten, coerce or intimidate the defacto complainant or the witnesses.

¶28

(iv) They shall not get involved in any other identical offence and the involvement if any, will be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶29

Anticipatory bail application is allowed as above.

Sd/-

SUNIL THOMAS

JUDGE

Sbna/

Lithin v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lithin v. the 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

Jayaram.v Iyyer Vs State of Kerala

S.L.P. Kunhibi @ Kunjalima Vs State of Kerala

Sasi @ Sivaramakrishnan Vs Deepa

Babu T.D. @ Mathai Vs State of Kerala

Renjith Ambadi, Vs the State of Kerala

Sarath Chandran Vs State of Kerala