Partly allowed

Chandran v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC6 Nov 2020Bail Appl./6313/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail applicant, first accused in a case involving grievous hurt, approached for anticipatory bail after the Sessions Court declined it. The High Court, declining to form findings on the trial of the injury attribute, ordered the applicant to surrender within two weeks for custodial interrogation and recovery of the weapon.

What did the court decide?

Applicant directed to surrender before investigating officer within two weeks; liberty to apply for regular bail after production. Bail application disposed of.

Chandran Vs 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

FRIDAY, THE 06TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 15TH KARTHIKA, 1942

¶5

Bail Appl..No.6313 OF 2020

¶6

CRIME NO.718/2019 OF Kuttampuzha Police Station, Ernakulam

¶7

PETITIONER/A1:

¶8

CHANDRAN AGED 40 YEARS SON OF PONNAPPAN, ELAMBLASSERY HOUSE, MAMALAKANDAM, KUTTAMPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 686681

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.S.RENJITH

¶10

RESPONDENT/STATE:

¶11

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

¶12

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶13

OTHERS PRESENT:

¶14

SRI.C.N.PRABHAKARAN SR PP

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.11.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

BA 6313/2020

O R D E R

Dated this the 6th day of November 2020 APPLICATION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL

¶20

The applicant is the first accused in Crime No.718/2019 of Kuttampuzha Police Station for having allegedly committed offences punishable under Sections 447, 294(b), 324 and 326 read with Section 34 IPC.

¶21

The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 19.11.2019 at about 9 p.m., the applicant along with two others trespassed into the courtyard of the house of the de facto complainant, questioned him about his giving information about the accused persons to the Excise Department and thereafter assaulted him brutally with dangerous weapons like iron rods and caused grievous injury to him. The applicant and two others had approached the Sessions Court for anticipatory bail. The learned Sessions Judge granted anticipatory bail to accused Nos.2 and 3, but declined the bail application of the applicant for the reason that grievous injury was caused by him and therefore he

¶22

BA 6313/2020

¶23

¶24

cannot be granted the benefit of anticipatory bail.

¶25

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

¶26

The argument of the learned counsel appearing for the applicant is that the allegation in the first instance was that the applicant had hit the de facto complainant on his face with an iron rod. But the grievous hurt was sustained by him on his ribs and therefore, it is adequately clear that it was not the first applicant who had caused the grievous hurt. The learned Prosecutor in answer to that submits that the de facto complainant was rendered unconscious by being brutally manhandled. The subsequent statement was also taken and in that he has clearly stated the manner in which he sustained the grievous injury due to being beaten up with an iron rod by the applicant. Whether the rib injuries were caused by the applicant or not is a matter for the trial court to decide. This bail court is not going to enter into a finding so prematurely regarding those aspects. Hence, I leave it for the trial court to decide. But definitely, the applicant was wielding an iron rod and had assaulted the de

¶27

BA 6313/2020

¶28

¶29

facto complainant with that causing a grievous injury and therefore, the weapon will have to be recovered from him. He will have to be subjected to custodial interrogation for

¶30

that purpose.

¶31

Under the circumstances, the bail application is disposed of with a direction to the applicant to surrender before the investigating officer within two weeks. After his arrest, he shall be interrogated and after recovery is effected, he shall be produced before the jurisdictional court, where he is at liberty to apply for a regular bail, which shall be considered and preferably disposed of on the same day.

¶32

With these observations, the Bail Application is

disposed of.

Sd/-

ASHOK MENON

JUDGE

Chandran v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandran 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

Shiji P R Vs State of Kerala

Hrishikradh@ Sagar Vs State of Kerala

Afsal Vs State of Kerala

Krishnan Nair N Vs State of Kerala

Sunny Cleetus Vs State of Kerala

Joseph Vs State of Kerala