Dismissed

Sidhik. a v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC14 Jul 2020Bail Appl./2076/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed an application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner was accused of committing offences under various IPC sections involving injuries. The court found it not a fit case to grant bail, directing surrender within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail dismissed; petitioner directed to surrender before Investigating Officer within two weeks.

Sidhik. a Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JULY 2020 / 23RD ASHADHA, 1942 Bail Appl..No.2076 OF 2020

¶5

CRIME NO.213 OF 2020 OF SAKTHIKULANGARA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

SIDHIK.A, AGED 21 YEARS, S/O. AMEEN, KIZHAKKEKOTTOR VADAKKATHIL, RAMANKULANGARA NAGAR -156, KANNIMEL CHERY, KOLLAM-691 003

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.JUSTINE JACOB SRI.K.S.ARUNKUMAR RAJEE P MATHEWS SMT.BINDHU MOHAN SMT.AMRUTHA P S SMT.AMRUTHA K P

¶9

RESPONDENT/STATE:

¶10

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 031

¶11

OTHER PRESENT:

¶12

SRI.C.N.PRABHAKARAN – SR.PP

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.07.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

B.A.No.2076 OF 2020

¶15

¶16

ORDER

¶17

Dated this the 14^th day of July, 2020

¶18

APPLICATION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL

¶19

The petitioner is the 2nd accused in Crime No.213
of 2020 of Sakthikulangara Police Station, Kollam, for having
allegedly committed offences punishable under Sections
143, 147, 148, 294(b), 341, 323, 324, 506(i) read with
Section 149 of the IPC, and subsequently, Section 326 IPC
has also been added to the crime. The prosecution case in
brief is thus:

¶20

2.On 25.02.2020, around 9.30pm, the petitioner was
a member of an unlawful assembly, consisting of 7 persons,
and in prosecution of the common object of the unlawful
assembly, they committed riot, armed with deadly weapons
like iron block, iron rod etc., and wrongfully restrained the
defacto complainant, abused him with obscene words, and
thereafter assaulted him, both with hands, iron block and
with an iron rod and also intimidated him causing grievous
injury to him. The petitioner states that he is innocent. He

¶21

B.A.No.2076 OF 2020

¶22

¶23

is only 21 years old. He has no criminal antecedents and
that the allegations against him are false and frivolous and
therefore, he may be released on anticipatory bail.

¶24

3.The learned Public Prosecutor has very serious
objections in granting bail to the petitioner and narrates the
manner in which, the defacto complainant was very seriously
injured. He has sustained three separate fractures on his
skull, due to being hit with the iron block and the iron rod.
The petitioner was welding an iron rod. So, it is sure that A1
and A2 are the main perpetrators of the crime. The
remaining accused had kicked him and assaulted him and
were all members of an unlawful assembly. But, considering
the overt acts on the part of the 2nd accused, he cannot be
granted bail, even though, it is true that he does not have
any criminal antecedents and that he is only 21 years old.

¶25

4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
points out to the infirmity in the prosecution case, by stating
that the FIR was registered only on 01.03.2020, though the
incident had allegedly occurred on 25.02.2020 and there is

¶26

B.A.No.2076 OF 2020

¶27

¶28

no explanation for the delay. In answer to that, the learned
Public Prosecutor submits that, immediately, after the
occurrence which happened in the night of 25.02.2020, he
was taken to the hospital. Unfortunately, no intimation was
given from the hospital and the statement of the defacto
complainant could be recorded only on 01.03.2020, in
consequence of which, the crime was registered. It is also
stated that recovery has not been affected and therefore, the
petitioner cannot be released on bail.

¶29

5.After having considered the entirety of the facts
and circumstances of the case and the manner in which, the
defacto complainant was assaulted, I find that this is not a fit
case, where the extraordinary remedy of an anticipatory bail
can be granted to the petitioner. In the result, the petition is
dismissed and the petitioner is directed to surrender before
the Investigating Officer within two weeks and after
interrogation and recovery, in the event of his being
arrested, he shall be produced before the jurisdictional
Magistrate, before whom, the petitioner shall be at liberty to
apply for a regular bail, which shall be considered on its

¶30

B.A.No.2076 OF 2020

¶31

¶32

merits by the learned Magistrate, also considering the
mitigating circumstances pointed by the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner and preferably pass the order
on the very same date.

¶33

With these observations, the bail application is
dismissed.

¶34

Sd/- ASHOK MENON JUDGE

¶35

NR/14/07/2020

Sidhik. a v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sidhik. a 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

Yedhu Rajipat Vs State of Kerala

Laiju V.G. Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Khader, Vs State of Kerala

Sandeep Vs State of Kerala

Sunny, Vs State of Kerala

Anas Muhammed Vs the State of Kerala