Partly allowed

Anoop v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC25 Feb 2019Bail Appl./763/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application regarding an injury case under IPC, the High Court of Kerala granted bail to three petitioners but directed the fourth accused to surrender unconditionally. It distinguished injuries suffered by the victim from those alleged in a counter-case.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed to petitioners 1, 3, and 4 on bonds and conditions; petitioner 2 directed to surrender unconditionally for subsequent bail consideration.

Anoop 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 SUNIL THOMAS

¶4

MONDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 6TH PHALGUNA, 1940

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 763 of 2019

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER IN CRMC 36/2019 of SESSIONS COURT, THODUPUZHA DATED 25-01-2019

¶7

CRIME NO. 538/2018 OF SANTHANPARA POLICE STATION, IDUKKI

¶8

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:

¶9

1 ANOOP AGED 27 YEARS S/O. THOMAS, KUNNEL HOUSE, UDUMBANCHOLA P.O., KALLUPALAM, IDUKKI ISTRICT.

¶10

2 AJIL AGED 28 YEARS S/O SHAJI, MUKUKKOLIL HOUSE, UDUMBANCHOLA P.O., ADUKINDANTHAN, IDUKKI DISTRICT.

¶11

3 JISMON P. AGED 28 YEARS S/O. JOHN MATHEW, PONNAMBEL HOUSE, UDUMBANCHOLA P.O., KALLUPALAM, IDUKKI DISTRICT.

¶12

4 EBIN @ KUTTAPPI AGED 21 YEARS S/O. SHAIBI, KUNNEL HOUSE, UDUMBANCHOLA P.O., KALLUPALAM IDUKKI DISTRICT.

¶13

BY ADVS. SRI.S.RAJEEV SRI.D.FEROZE SRI.K.ANAND (A-1921) SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN SRI.V.VINAY

¶14

Bail Appl..No. 763 of 2019

¶15

¶16

RESPONDENTS/STATE:

¶17

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031 (CRIME NO.538/2018 OF SANTHANPARA POLICE STATION, IDUKKI DISTRICT).

¶18

2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER SANTHANPARA POLICE STATION, IDUKKI DISTRICT-685 619 (CRIME NO.538/2018 OF SANTHANPARA POLICE STATION, IDUKKI DISTRICT).

¶19

OTHER PRESENT:

¶20

(SR.PP) SRI. C.N. PRABHAKARAN.

¶21

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25.02.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

Bail Appl..No. 763 of 2019

¶23

¶24

O R D E R

¶25

Petitioners stand arrayed as accused Nos.1, 3, 2 and 4 respectively in Crime No.538/2018 of Santhanpara Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 506(i), 323, 324, 326 read with Section 34 of IPC. According to the prosecution, on 26.12.2018 at 6.00 p.m., while the de facto complainant was on the road side, petitioners attacked him and the 1^st accused hit on his body. When he fell down, accused Nos.3 and 4 stabbed on his chest. He was taken to the hospital and crime was registered. The medical records indicate that the victim sustained a fracture of the 6^th rib and he had a fracture of the nasal bone.

¶26

2. Seeking bail, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the genesis of the incident is different and it is suppressed by the de facto complainant in the FIS. It was

¶27

Bail Appl..No. 763 of 2019

¶28

¶29

stated that the accused trespassed into the shop of the de facto complainant carrying liquor bottle. This was opposed by the de facto complainant, whereupon an altercation occurred. It was stated that Crime No.537/2018 was registered on the basis of the complaint laid by the de facto complainant therein. They have gone to the hospital and was seen by the Doctor at 10.30 p.m. on that day.

¶30

3. It seems that the petitioners have a case that there is a case and a counter case and the genesis of the crime is suppressed in the

¶31

present crime. It is doubtful whether the genesis of the incident is as suggested by the petitioner herein.

¶32

4. It is true that there is a crime

¶33

registered as Crime No.537/2018. FIS is produced along with the bail application. No visible injury is seen inflicted on the de facto

¶34

complainant therein. On the other hand, the

¶35

Bail Appl..No. 763 of 2019

¶36

¶37

victim had sustained a fracture on the nasal bone as well as the rib. There is no explanation forthcoming from the facts narrated by the petitioners herein.

¶38

Having considered these facts and the absence of any specific criminal antecedents, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioners 1, 3 and 4. Hence, the bail application of petitioners 1, 3 and 4 is allowed on the following conditions:

¶39

(i) Petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer within 10 days from today and shall undergo interrogation. Thereafter, if they are proposed to be arrested, they shall be released on bail on each of the petitioner executing a bond for a sum of 40,000/- (Rupees₹ forty thousand only) with two sureties for the like sum each.

¶40

(ii) They shall appear before the

¶41

Investigating officer on all Wednesdays between

¶42

Bail Appl..No. 763 of 2019

¶43

¶44

9.00 a.m. and 10.00 a.m. for a period of one month from the date of execution of the bond. (iii) They shall not threaten, coerce or intimidate the defacto complainant or the witnesses.

¶45

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

¶46

Since the 2^nd petitioner, who is the 3^rd accused has no criminal antecedents, I am inclined to permit him to surrender before the Investigating Officer within 10 days from today. After interrogation and identification, he shall be produced before the jurisdictional court on the same day, which shall consider the bail application on the same day itself.

¶47

Sd/-

¶48

SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE

¶49

Pn 25/02

Anoop v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anoop 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

Jaismon Jacob @ Alotty Vs the State of Kerala

Nihas Vs State of Kerala

Anzal Hussain, Vs State of Kerala

Vinish Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Usha Vs State of Kerala

Baiju v. Vs State of Kerala