Partly allowed

Aji v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC5 Apr 2019Bail Appl./2713/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court rejected anticipatory bail for one petitioner involved in an assault causing nasal fracture. Bail was granted to the second petitioner with strict conditions pending final report, allowing surrender to the magistrate.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail rejected for first petitioner. Second petitioner granted bail on Rs 50,000 with conditions to cooperate and report to investigating officer.

Aji Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.BABU

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF APRIL 2019 / 15TH CHAITHRA, 1941

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 2713 of 2018

¶6

CRIME NO. 66/2018 OF Pooyapally Police Station , Kollam

¶7

PETITIONER/S:

¶8

1 AJI AGED 24 YEARS, S/O.MURALI, MUKESH BHAVAN, PALAMUKKU, KOTTARA WARD, POOYAPPALLY VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶9

2 MUKESH AGED 28 YEARS, S/O.MURALI, MUKESH BHAVAN,PALAMUKKU, KOTTARA WARD, POOYAPPALLY VILLAGE,KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.K.V.ANIL KUMAR

¶11

RESPONDENT/S:

¶12

STATE OF KERALA

¶13

REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.

¶14

OTHER PRESENT:

¶15

SRI. B.JAYASURYA-SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶16

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.04.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

¶18

Bail Appl..No. 2713 of 2018

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Accused 2 and 3 in crime no.66/2018 of Pooyappally police station in Kollam district are the petitioners. They allegedly committed offences punishable under Secs 109, 114, 294(b), 323, 324, 326, 341 and 354 of IPC read with IPC 34. They seek anticipatory bail under Sec.438 of Cr.P.C.

¶21

Prosecution case goes as follows: The accused persons had grudge against the first informant. They therefore attacked him at 6 p.m on 8.1.2018. Accused 1 and 2 slapped on the cheek of the first informant. His shirt was torn off by accused 1 to 4. He was hit with a stone on his nose by the second accused/first petitioner resulting in fracture of the nasal bone. When the mother of the first informant intervened to save her son, she was also attacked by the accused persons.

¶22

Heard Smt.Swapna Vijayan, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri.B.Jayasurya, the learned senior public prosecutor.

¶23

The case diary is made available for my perusal. I perused it. The wound certificate suggests a fracture on the nasal bone of the victim. Going by the prosecution case, it was caused by the first petitioner by hitting with a stone. Considering the injuries, particularly the fracture, and also considering the serious allegations against the first petitioner, I do not find it appropriate to grant him bail under Sec.438 of Cr.P.C.

¶24

The allegation against the second petitioner who is the

¶25

¶26

Bail Appl..No. 2713 of 2018

¶27

third accused is that he beat the mother of the first informant with hand. She did not sustain any grievous injury. No allegation of outraging the modesty is made against the second petitioner. His custodial interrogation does not appear to be necessary for an effective investigation of the case. I am therefore inclined to grant him bail.

¶28

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the first petitioner is ready to surrender before the investigating officer. The first petitioner is free to do so. In the event of his surrender, the investigating officer, after interrogation, shall produce the petitioner before the magistrate within the time allowed by the Cr.P.C. On such production, the learned magistrate will act according to law. It is made clear that the investigating officer is under no obligation to wait for the surrender of the first petitioner.

¶29

The application is disposed of as under: The request of the first petitioner to grant him bail under Sec.438 of Cr.P.C is rejected. If arrested in connection with crime no.66/2018 of Pooyappally police station, the second petitioner shall be released on bail, after interrogation, if any, on his executing a bond for Rs 50,000/- (fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the investigating officer. The second petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation. He shall make himself available for interrogation if so required by the investigating officer. The second petitioner shall report to the investigating officer between 10 am and 11 am on every Tuesday for a period of two

¶30

¶31

Bail Appl..No. 2713 of 2018

¶32

months or till the filing of the final report, whichever is earlier. The second petitioner shall not intimidate or attempt to influence witnesses. Nor shall he destroy or tamper with evidence. The magistrate having jurisdiction is hereby empowered to cancel the bail in accordance with law if any of the conditions aforementioned is violated. If the second petitioner surrenders before the magistrate, this order will cease to have effect and the learned magistrate will pass appropriate orders as if this order has not been passed.

Sd/-

A.M.BABU

JUDGE

Sks/5.4.2019

Aji v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aji 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

Bhuvaneswari Vs State of Kerala

Nithhin Xavier Vs State of Kerala

Shyju K.P. Vs P.G.Sathyamoorthi

Maheswari K.U., Vs the Station House Officer

Shafeer P.M. Vs State of Kerla

Abdul Salam, Vs State of Kerala