Allowed

Nibin, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC6 Dec 2019Bail Appl./8532/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Section 438 CrPC filed by three accused in a criminal case involving assault and cheating, the High Court of Kerala observed that serious doubts existed regarding the incident's genesis due to the delay between the alleged crime and FIR registration. Considering the applicants had no prior criminal record, the court allowed the application and granted pre-arrest bail on

What did the court decide?

The bail application is allowed. The accused shall be released on bail on executing a bond of Rs.50,000/- each with two solvent sureties, subject to conditions: regular appearance for interrogation, n

Nibin, Vs State of Kerala — Cheating and Forgery | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 06TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 / 15TH AGRAHAYANA, 1941

¶5

Bail Appl..No.8532 OF 2019

¶6

CRIME NO.717/2019 OF THE KANNANALLOOR POLICE STATION IN KOLLAM

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 TO 3:

¶8

1 NIBIN, AGED 21 YEARS

¶9

S/O VIJAYAN, RESIDING AT LEKSHMY, SADANAM, KUREEPALLY, ALUMOODU.P.O, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691577.

¶10

2 ATHUL, AGED 20 YEARS S/O ANIL, RESIDING AT ASHOK BHAVANAM, KUREEPALLY, ALUMOODU.P.O, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN-691577.

¶11

3 SHAN, AGED 24 YEARS S/O. SAINUDHEEN, RESIDING AT HAZEENA MANZIL, KUREEPALLY, ALUMOODU.P.O, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN-691577.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.V.A.AJIVAS

¶13

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE:

¶14

STATE OF KERALA

¶15

REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KANNANALLOOR POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682031.

¶16

SRI AJITH MURALI PULIC PROSECUTOR

¶17

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.12.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

ORDER

¶19

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

¶20

The applicants herein are the accused Nos. 1 to 3 in Crime No. 717 of 2019 of Kannanalloor Police Station registered under Sections 341,294(b), 323, 324, 506(ii) and 308 r/w Section 34 of the IPC.

¶21

According to the Prosecution, on 19.10.2019, at about 10.30 p.m while the informant was retuning back home on a scooter, he was waylaid by the accused and the accused is alleged to have attacked him with weapons causing injuries.

¶22

The learned counsel appearing for the applicants submits that there is absolutely no truth in the allegations. According to the learned counsel, though the incident had taken place on 19.10.2019, the de facto complainant had set the law in motion only on 2.11.2019. He would contend the informant was not even aware of the identity of any of the accused and after a long period, false accusations are now raised against the applicants.

¶23

Heard the learned Public Prosecutor, who opposed the prayer. It is submitted that the victim had secured treatment from the District Hospital, Kollam on the date of incident itself. He points out that the victim had suffered several injuries including a punctured wound on his thigh and other injuries on various parts of his body. He did not inform the Police as he was

¶24

Bail Appl..No.8532 OF 2019

¶25

¶26

under the impression that the hospital authorities would report the incident.

¶27

I have considered the submissions advanced and have perused the records. The FIR is dated 2.11.2019 whereas the incident had allegedly taken place on 19.10.2019. In the wound certificate dated 20.10.2019 three injuries are noted, out of which two are minor contusions and one is a small punctured wound on his thigh. He was discharged from the hospital on the next day itself. None of the injuries can be said to be serious. There appears to be serious doubts with regard to the genesis of the incident in view of the long delay. The applicants are young men with no criminal antecedents. In the facts and circumstances, I am of the view of that by imposing stringent conditions, the applicants can be granted an order of pre-arrest bail.

¶28

In the result, this application will stand allowed. The applicants shall appear before the Investigating 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 their executing a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum. The above order shall be subject to the following conditions:

¶29

i) The applicants shall co-operate with the investigation and shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Saturdays between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m., for two months or till final

¶30

Bail Appl..No.8532 OF 2019

¶31

¶32

report is filed, whichever is earlier.

¶33

ii) They shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/ her from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer.

¶34

iii) They shall not commit any similar offence while on bail.

¶35

In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the jurisdictional Court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation, if any, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law.

¶36

SD/-

¶37

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶38

JUDGE

¶39

PKK

¶40

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

Nibin, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nibin, 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

Rekha John Vs State of Kerala

Biju Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Haneefa Vs State of Kerala

Prashanthan Vs the State of Kerala

Ajith Saji @ Unni Vs State of Kerala

Ranjith Vs the State of Kerala