Dismissed

Ranjith Balakrishnan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC2 Mar 2021Bail Appl./1321/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an anticipatory bail application, the Kerala High Court rejected the plea. The court held that since the applicant inflicted grievous injury on a complainant using a beer bottle, anticipatory bail could not be granted, though other accused were freed.

What did the court decide?

Application for anticipatory bail rejected; applicant directed to surrender to Investigating Officer within two weeks.

Ranjith Balakrishnan Vs State of Kerala — Anticipatory Bail | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 02ND DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 11TH PHALGUNA, 1942 Bail Appl..No.1321 OF 2021

¶5

CRIME NO.1285/2020 OF Kunnathunadu Police Station, Ernakulam

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

RANJITH BALAKRISHNAN AGED 25 YEARS POKKATTU HOUSE WEST MORAKKALA, KUNNATHUNADU ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 683565

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.IEANS.C.CHAMAKKALA

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

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

¶11

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶12

SANTHOSH PETER, SR PP

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

BA 1321/2021

O R D E R

Dated this the 2nd day of March 2021

¶18

APPLICATION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL

¶19

The applicant is the first accused in Crime No.1285/2020 of Kunnathunadu Police Station for having allegedly committed offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 506, 341, 427, 324 and 326 read with Section 149 IPC.

¶20

The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 25.12.2020, at about 9.30 p.m., the applicant and the other accused formed an unlawful assembly and in the prosecution of the common object of the unlawful assembly, waylaid the tempo traveller bearing Registration No.KL-17N-938 in which the de facto complainant and his friends were travelling and thereafter assaulted them with a beer bottle causing fracture of the frontal bone of the de facto complainant, with the knowledge that it could have even led to his death. They also committed mischief by breaking the windshield of the vehicle in which the de facto complainant and his friends were travelling. The applicant states that the allegations are not true. It is admitted that there was a scuffle between the applicant & the other accused and the de facto complainant & the others in this crime. A counter case has been

¶21

BA 1321/2021

¶22

¶23

registered against the de facto complainant and others as Crime No.1284/2020 of Kunnathunadu Police Station for similar offences. The fifth accused had sustained multiple injuries on his head to which the applicant has also produced Annexure-A1 wound certificate. The applicant states that accused 3 to 5 were granted anticipatory bail by the Sessions Court. The second accused consequent to his arrest was released on bail. The applicant, therefore, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶24

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

¶25

The learned Public Prosecutor points out that the applicant is a habitual offender and several crimes have been registered against him, and in the instant case, he was the main perpetrator of the crime of having assaulted the de facto complainant by means of a beer bottle causing fracture of his skull. The applicant, therefore, deserves no mercy and should not be granted anticipatory bail, submits the learned Prosecutor.

¶26

The learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that on going through the facts in both the crimes, it is clear that the de facto complainant and his friends were the aggressors and that they had inflicted injuries on all the accused, including the applicant, and serious injury was caused to the fifth accused in his skull. Under the

¶27

BA 1321/2021

¶28

¶29

circumstances, it is very clear that the applicant and the other accused were innocent, and therefore, the applicant deserves pre-arrest bail.

¶30

Considering the submissions on both sides, I find that the applicant had inflicted grievous injury on the de facto complainant using a beer bottle. Therefore, even though bail was granted to the other accused, the applicant cannot be granted the exceptional relief of anticipatory bail in this crime. He has to be interrogated.

¶31

The applicant is, therefore, directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer within two weeks. After arrest, interrogation and recovery, if any, he shall be produced before the jurisdictional court, where he is at liberty to apply for regular bail, which shall be considered and preferably disposed of by the jurisdictional court on the very same day.

¶32

With these observations, the Bail Application is disposed of.

Sd/-

ASHOK MENON

JUDGE

Ranjith Balakrishnan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranjith Balakrishnan 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

Varghese Vs State of Kerala

Shoukkath Vs State of Kerala

Subaidha Vs State of Kerala

Jackson Vs State of Kerala

Sreejith Vs State of Kerala

K.G. Sajan Vs State of Kerala