Dismissed

Bipin v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC23 Oct 2018Bail Appl./6156/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners, accused Nos.3 and 7 in a public assembly case, sought anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC, arguing lack of overt acts against them. The Court rejected pre-arrest bail citing grievous injuries and unlawful assembly nature but directed surrender for regular bail.

What did the court decide?

Application for anticipatory bail dismissed; applicants directed to surrender forthwith for regular bail application.

Bipin Vs State of Kerala — Corruption | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER 2018 / 1ST KARTHIKA, 1940

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 6156 of 2018

¶6

CRIME NO. 524/2018 OF KILIKOLLOOR POLICE STATION, KOLLAM

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.3 & 7:

¶8

1 BIPIN, AGED 19 YEARS, S/O. BAIJU, REHIYANATH MANZIL, NAKSHTRA NAGAR, KALLUMTHAZHAM, KILIKOLLOOR, KOLLAM.

¶9

2 RAHUL,

¶10

AGED 20 YEARS, S/O. VIJAYAN, VILAYIL PUTHEVEEDU, SANTHOSH COTTAGE, KODUVILA P.O., EAST KALLADA NOW RESIDING KASAVU BUILDING, T.K.M.C. P.O., KOLLAM

¶11

BY ADVS. VIPIN NARAYAN SRUTHY N. BHAT

¶12

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶13

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.

¶14

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.K.SURESH

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.10.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

Bail Appl..No. 6156 of 2018

¶17

¶18

ORDER

¶19

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

¶20

The applicants herein are the accused Nos.3 and 7 in Crime No.524 of 2018 of the Kilikolloor Police Station. In the aforesaid crime, they are accused of having committed offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 294(b), 323, 324, 341, 452, 354 and 308 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶21

For having ridden a bike through the public road in front of his house at breakneck speed, the 3^rd accused was warned by the de facto complainant. This led to an altercation. The 3^rd accused left the place after threatening him with serious consequences. Within no time, he returned back with the rest of the accused in 5 motor bikes. All of them were allegedly armed with weapons. The accused went on a rampage and attacked the de facto complainant and his near relatives, including a lady. When they took refuge inside the house, the accused chased them and continued with the onslaught. Very serious incised wounds were sustained by the de facto complainant and his brother-in-law.

¶22

Bail Appl..No. 6156 of 2018

¶23

¶24

The learned counsel appearing for the applicants would contend that the main overt acts are assigned to accused Nos.1 and 2. Though the applicants were present in and around the scene, there is no case for the prosecution that any serious injuries were inflicted by them.

¶25

The learned Public Prosecutor, while strenuously opposing the prayer, pointed out that for a trivial reason, the applicants herein and others had trespassed into the home of the de facto complainant and had inflicted serious injuries. It is submitted that the group was led by the accused Nos. 1 and 2, who are habitual offenders. He further contended that specific overt acts are assigned to every accused.

¶26

I have considered the submissions advanced and have gone through the wound certificate as well as the statement of the witnesses. The wound certificate would reveal that grievous incised wounds were sustained by the de facto complainant and his brother-in-law. Even the lady, who was present inside the house, was assaulted. It is evident from the sequence of events that the

¶27

Bail Appl..No. 6156 of 2018

¶28

¶29

incriminating acts were committed to accomplish the common object of the unlawful assembly and each of them were aware of the likelihood of grievous injuries were being inflicted in prosecution of the common object. Having considered all the relevant aspects, I am not inclined to intrude into the sphere of investigation and arm the applicants with an order of pre-arrest bail.

¶30

The applicants will have to surrender before the Investigating Officer or the jurisdictional court forthwith. The apprehension of the applicants that their application for regular bail will not be considered expeditiously and on its merits is without basis. It is for the applicants to move appropriate application for their release on bail and if such an application is filed, the same would certainly be considered and orders shall be passed.

¶31

This application is dismissed.

¶32

Sd/-

¶33

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶34

JUDGE

¶35

DSV/23/10/18

¶36

//TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE

Bipin v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bipin 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

Ashin Vs State of Kerala

Adarsh Vs State of Kerala

Vishnu @ Kunjunni, Vs State of Kerala

Pulilandy P Manoj Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Azeez Vs the State of Kerala

Athira Vs State of Kerala