Dismissed

Nithin Aloysious v. State of Kerala Represented by the Public Prosecutor High Court of Kerala

Kerala HC17 Aug 2020Bail Appl./4816/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge in Kerala dismissed an application for anticipatory bail. The court held that as the applicant was the main perpetrator wielding a dangerous weapon he cannot be released; he must surrender for investigation. An ordinary bail application may be filed afterward.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed; directed to surrender before investigating officer within two weeks.

Nithin Aloysious Vs State of Kerala Represented by the… — Cheating and Forgery | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON

¶4

MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 26TH SRAVANA, 1942

¶5

Bail Appl..No.4816 OF 2020

¶6

CRIME NO.1066/2020 OF Pallithottam Police Station, Kollam

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

NITHIN ALOYSIOUS AGED 24 YEARS S/O ALOYSIOUS RAJEEV BHAVANAM, PERINADU PO ANCHALUMOODU, KOLLAM 691601 BY ADV. SRI.M.RAJESH

¶9

RESPONDENT:

¶10

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM 682031

¶11

SRI.C.N.PRABHAKARAN SR PP

¶12

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.08.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

Bail Appl..No.4816 OF 2020

¶14

¶15

ORDER

¶16

Dated this the 17th day of August 2020

¶17

This is an application filed under Section 438 of

¶18

Cr.P.C seeking anticipatory bail.

¶19

Applicant is the first accused in Crime No.1066/2020

¶20

of Pallithottam Police Station, for having allegedly committed offences punishable under Sections 447, 323, 324, 294(b), 506(ii), 427 r/w Section 34 of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

¶21

The prosecution case in brief is that, on

¶22

29.05.2020 at about 12.45 a.m, the applicant along with other accused, in furtherance of common intention attempted to trespass into the residence of the defacto

¶23

complainant, hurled abuses at him, and tried to break

¶24

open the door of the house with a dangerous weapon like a chopper/sword. When the defacto complainant attempted to

¶25

resist, he was attacked by the applicant and an injury was caused to his palm.

¶26

Two of the accused have been granted anticipatory

¶27

bail by this Court vide orders at Annexures III and IV.

¶28

The applicant states that considering these facts, he

¶29

Bail Appl..No.4816 OF 2020

¶30

¶31

also may be granted a pre-arrest bail.

¶32

The specific prosecution case is that it was the applicant who was wielding the dangerous weapon. He is the person who committed mischief by breaking open the

¶33

door and he is the one who had attacked the defacto complainant. The other accused only accompanied him, and therefore their role in the alleged offence is minimal and the fact that they were granted anticipatory bail does not entitle the applicant also to get the benefit of an anticipatory bail which is granted only in extraordinary circumstances.

¶34

Heard the learned counsel for the applicant, and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶35

The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the

¶36

weapon which was allegedly used by the applicant has not yet been recovered.

¶37

The learned counsel submits that the weapon is not

¶38

a sword and that it is only a chopper and it would not

¶39

come under the purview of Section 27 of the Arms Act, and the injury sustained by the de facto complainant is only

¶40

a simple hurt on his palm and therefore, he may be

¶41

Bail Appl..No.4816 OF 2020

¶42

¶43

released on bail.

¶44

After having considered the fact that the

¶45

applicant was the main perpetrator of the crime, and that he was supported by many others who had accompanied him,

¶46

intimidating the de facto complainant, and that the weapon whether a sword or a chopper has to be recovered from the applicant, he cannot be released on anticipatory bail.

¶47

In the result, the application is dismissed, and the

¶48

applicant is directed to surrender before the investigating officer within two weeks. After

¶49

interrogation and recovery if any, he shall be produced before the jurisdictional court, where he is at liberty to apply for a regular bail, which can be considered and disposed of preferably on the very same date, considering the pandemic situation, antecedents and other attending circumstances.

Sd/-

ASHOK MENON

JUDGE

SPK

Nithin Aloysious v. State of Kerala Represented by the Public Prosecutor High Court of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nithin Aloysious v. State of Kerala Represented by the Public Prosecutor High Court 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

Sini Manjesh, Vs State of Kerala

Sini Manjesh Vs State of Kerala

Shanavas Vs Public Prosecutor

Hilda Sandra Duram, Vs State of Kerala

Nidhnin Vs State of Kerala

Ansab Vs Public Prosecutor