Partly allowed

Robin @ Manu, v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC20 Aug 2020Bail Appl./1381/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment grants anticipatory bail to two accused accused ofattemptedmurder and voluntarary hurt. The court delays consideration of bail for the first accused until the alleged weapon is recovered and surrendered before the investigating officer.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted to Accused 2 and 3 on bond; Accused 1's bail conditional upon recovery of weapon and his surrender.

Robin @ Manu, Vs the State of Kerala — Anticipatory Bail | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 29TH SRAVANA, 1942

¶5

Bail Appl..No.1381 OF 2020

¶6

CRIME NO.46/2020 OF Chathannoor Police Station, Kollam

¶7

PETITIONERS:

¶8

1 ROBIN @ MANU, AGED 26 YEARS S/O. LATE PRAVISH KUMAR, CHANDANA PALACE, KARAMKODE P.O., CHATHANNOOR, KOLLAM.

¶9

2 ROSHIN, AGED 20 YEARS

¶10

S/O. LATE PRAVISH KUMAR, CHANDANA PALACE, KARAMKODE P.O., CHATHANNOOR, KOLLAM.

¶11

3 VISHNU, AGED 22 YEARS

¶12

S/O. OMANAKUTTAN, USHAS, THAZHAM NORTH, CHATHANNOOR P.O., KOLLAM.

¶13

BY ADV. SRI.K.R.SUNIL

¶14

RESPONDENT:

¶15

THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKLAM 682031

¶16

SRI.C.K.SURESH SR PP

¶17

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.08.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

BA No.1381.2020

ORDER

Dated this the 20th day of August 2020

¶22

This is an application filed under Section 438

¶23

of Cr.P.C seeking anticipatory bail.

¶24

The applicants are accused Nos.1, 2 and 3

¶25

in Crime No.46/2020 of Chanthanoor Police Station, for having allegedly committed offences punishable

¶26

under Sections 323, 307 r/w Section 34 of the IPC.

¶27

The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 16.01.2020, the de facto complainant and his

¶28

friend one Ajeesh had come near the Kotheri Shri Dharmashastha Temple in connection with a “Ganamela” being conducted there. It is alleged that the defacto complainant and his friends indulged in dancing in front of the stage causing a nuisance to the audience. The interference by

¶29

temple authorities did not yield results. The

¶30

applicants allegedly interfered and assaulted them. A1 was wielding a weapon like a sword, and

¶31

BA No.1381.2020

¶32

¶33

he had attacked the de facto complainant and his

¶34

relative Ajeesh with the sword resulting in incised injuries all over the body, in particular over the scalp. Thus the accused attempted to commit murder. There was some resistance by the de facto complainant and his friends, in consequence of which A2 also sustained some injuries including a nasal bone fracture. It is submitted that the accused 1 and 2 who are brothers are orphans living with their Aunt Beena Jayaraj. On

¶35

27.01.2020, she filed Annexure A4 complaint before the District Police Commissioner regarding the

¶36

injuries sustained to the applicants due to assault by the de facto complainant and his

¶37

friends. It is submitted that no case was

¶38

registered against the de facto complainant and others. It is further submitted that the de facto

¶39

complainant and his friends are all having

¶40

criminal antecedents whereas the applicants do not have any criminal antecedents and therefore, it

¶41

BA No.1381.2020

¶42

¶43

can be understood that they were the aggressors. Under the circumstances, the applicants seek prearrest bail. They are willing to co-operate with the investigation.

¶44

applicants and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶45

The learned Public Prosecutor vehemently

¶46

opposes the application for bail mainly on the ground that the weapon allegedly used by the 1st accused is yet to be recovered. It is also stated

¶47

that the de facto complainant's relative Ajeesh had sustained multiple injuries all over the body including the scalp which was inflicted by the 1st accused with a dangerous weapon like a sword. Under the circumstances, the application for

¶48

anticipatory bail may not be entertained, submits the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶49

considered the entire circumstances very anxiously, I find that there is only minimal overt

¶50

BA No.1381.2020

¶51

¶52

act attributed to A2 and A3. None of the

¶53

applicants have any criminal antecedents. It is submitted that they are willing to co-operate with the investigation. Even after seven months have elapsed, the applicants could not be apprehended. It indicates that they are evading interrogation. It is also submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the applicants were not available for giving any statement regarding the occurrence and therefore, no further action could be taken

¶54

based on the complaint filed by their Aunt as Annexure A4. It is relevant to note that A2 also has sustained nasal bone fracture injury because of the attack by the de facto complainant and others and therefore, it is clear that there was a scuffle. It is also pertinent to note that the de facto complainant, as well as his relative who has

¶55

sustained injuries, are implicated in more than one criminal cases, even though those criminal cases are not very serious.

¶56

BA No.1381.2020

¶57

¶58

Considering the facts and circumstances, I

¶59

find that there is no harm in granting anticipatory bail to accused 2 and 3. But as far as A1 is concerned, the weapon used by him will have to be recovered and his bail application can be considered only after the weapon is recovered.

¶60

In the result the application is allowed in

¶61

part, and the applicants are directed to surrender before the investigating officer within three weeks. After interrogation and recovery, the 1st

¶62

accused shall be produced before the

¶63

jurisdictional court, where he is at liberty to apply for regular bail, and his bail application shall be considered and disposed of preferably on the same day keeping in view of the present pandemic situation and other attending

¶64

circumstances.

¶65

Accused 2 and 3 shall be released on bail

¶66

on the execution of a bond for Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty thousand only) each with two solvent

¶67

BA No.1381.2020

¶68

¶69

sureties each, for the like amount to the

¶70

satisfaction of the investigating officer and on the following conditions;

¶71

influence or intimidate witnesses.

¶72

They shall appear before the investigating

¶73

officer as and when called for.

¶74

They shall not get involved in similar

¶75

offences during the bail period.

¶76

In the event of violating the bail conditions,

¶77

the prosecution shall be at liberty to apply for cancellation of bail before the jurisdictional court.

Sd/-

ASHOK MENON

JUDGE

SPK

Robin @ Manu, v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Robin @ Manu, 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

Ajayakumar G. Vs State of Kerala

Subrahmanian Vs State of Kerala

Rajeev Vs State of Kerala

Sanil Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Priyan Antony Prakattu, Vs State of Kerala

Reji . M.P . Vs Public Prosecutor