Partly allowed

Ansu v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC16 Feb 2018Bail Appl./7907/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC for accused in a grievous hurt case, the High Court rejected bail for Petitioners 1 and 2 who used iron rods, while granting pre-arrest bail to Petitioners 3 to 7 who allegedly used hands and legs, imposing specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

Pre-arrest bail allowed for Petitioners 3 to 7 on executing bond of Rs. 25,000/- each with two sureties, subject to five conditions including appearance before Investigating Officer and not leaving Ke

Ansu 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 R. NARAYANA PISHARADI

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018 / 27TH MAGHA, 1939

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 7907 of 2017

¶6

--------------------------CRIME NO. 1597/2017 OF SOORANADU POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT

¶7

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

¶8

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO. 1 TO 7

¶9

1 ANSU, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O. SAJEEV, RESIDING AT PUTHUMANGALATHU VEEDU, PADINJATTUM KIZHAKKU MURI, SOORANADU NORTH VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶10

2 SHEFEEK,AGED 33 YEARS,

¶11

S/O. SAINUDEEN, RESIDING AT LAKSHAMVEETTIL, CHENCHIRAKUZHIYIL, PADINJATTUM KIZHAKKU MURI, SOORANADU NORTH VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶12

3 AASHIK,AGED 19 YEARS,

¶13

S/O. MAJEED, RESIDING AT LAKSHAMVEETTIL, CHENCHIRAKUZHIYIL VEETTIL, PADINJATTUM KIZHAKKU MURI, SOORANADU NORTH VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶14

4 THOUFEEK,AGED 22 YEARS, S/O. LATHEEF, RESIDING AT VAZHIYUDE VADAKKATHIL VEETTIL, PADINJATTUM KIZHAKKU MURI, SOORANADU NORTH VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶15

5 ANSAR, AGED 25 YEARS,

¶16

S/O. MAJEED, RESIDING AT LAKSHAMVEETTIL, CHENCHIRAKUZHIYIL, PADINJATTUM KIZHAKKU MURI, SOORANADU NORTH VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶17

6 SHANU, AGED 23 YEARS,

¶18

S/O. SHAJAHAN, RESIDING AT LAKSHAMVEETTIL, CHENCHIRAKUZHIYIL, PADINJATTUM KIZHAKKU MURI, SOORANADU NORTH VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶19

7 SAJAD, AGED 19 YEARS,

¶20

S/O. SAJEEV, RESIDING AT CHENCHIRAKUZHIYIL LAKSHAMVEETTIL, PADINJATTUM KIZHAKKU MURI, SOORANADU NORTH VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶21

BY ADV.SRI.MANU RAMACHANDRAN

¶22

Bail Appl..No. 7907 of 2017

¶23

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

¶24

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT/STATE :

¶25

THE STATE OF KERALA THROUGH SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SOORANADU POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA.

¶26

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.B.UDAYAKUMAR

¶27

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16-02-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶28

¶29

R. NARAYANA PISHARADI, J.

¶30

Bail Application No.7907 of 2017

¶31

Dated this the 16^th day of February, 2018

¶32

O R D E R

¶33

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

¶34

This is an application for anticipatory bail filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶35

The petitioners are accused 1 to 7 in the case registered as Crime No.1597/2017 of Sooranadu Police Station under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 323, 324 and 326 read with 149 IPC. The prosecution case is that on 18.10.2017, at about 23.00 hours, while cultural programmes were going on in connection with the anniversary of a club at the place Chenchirakkuzhi, the accused together attacked the de facto complainant with deadly weapons and that they voluntarily caused grievous hurt to him by causing fracture to his right femur. It is alleged that the first and the second accused beat the de facto complainant with iron rods and the other accused beat him with their hands and kicked him with their legs.

¶36

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and

¶37

B.A.7907/17 :2:

¶38

the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the report of the Investigating Officer and also the Case Diary.

¶39

On a perusal of the First Information Statement given to the police by the de facto complainant it is seen that the first accused Anshad @ Ansu and the second accused Shefeek S/o Sainudeen were the persons who beat the de facto complainant with iron rods causing fracture to his right femur. Considering the nature of the overt acts committed by these petitioners, I find that the discretion of the court cannot be exercised in favour of these persons to grant them pre-arrest bail.

¶40

However, the case against the other petitioners stand on a different footing. The allegation against them is only that they beat and kicked the de facto complainant with their hands and legs. Custodial interrogation of them appears to be not necessary to have an effective investigation. Considering the minor role played by these petitioners in the incident, I find that the discretion of the court can be exercised in their favour to grant them pre-

¶41

B.A.7907/17 :3:

¶42

arrest bail.

¶43

In the result, the prayer for granting pre-arrest bail to petitioners 1 and 2 is rejected. The prayer for granting pre-arrest bail to the other petitioners is allowed and it is ordered as follows:

¶44

i. Petitioners 3 to 7 shall be released on bail on executing a bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand only) each with two sureties each for the like amount in the event of their arrest by police in Crime No.1597/2017 of Sooranadu Police Station.

¶45

ii. Petitioners 3 to 7 shall appear before the Investigating Officer between 9.00 AM and 11.00 AM on all Saturdays for a period of two months after being released on bail.

¶46

iii.Petitioners 3 to 7 shall not influence or intimidate the de facto complainant and the other prosecution witnesses in the case. They shall not make any attempt to tamper with the evidence in the case.

¶47

iv. Petitioners 3 to 7 shall not leave the State of Kerala without the prior permission of the jurisdictional court concerned.

¶48

B.A.7907/17 :4:

¶49

v. Petitioners 3 to 7 shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when directed in writing to do so.

¶50

Sd/-

¶51

R. NARAYANA PISHARADI JUDGE

¶52

okb.

¶53

//True copy// P.A. to Judge

Ansu v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ansu 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

F. Edison Vs the Station House Officer, Kunnamkulam Police Station

Dr. Biju Luke George Vs State of Kerala

Bharathan M P Vs State of Kerala

Ratheesh Vs State of Kerala

Arun @Achu Vs State of Kerala

Thomas P.Joseph Vs the Sub Inspector of Police