Allowed

Suhas v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC30 Mar 2021Bail Appl./1737/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail application under Section 438 CrPC, the Kerala High Court granted pre-arrest bail to two accused charged with offences under Sections 323, 326, and 341 of the IPC. The Court noted the lack of other injuries, delay in FIR, and absence of criminal antecedents, deeming custodial interrogation unnecessary while imposing standard bond conditions.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed; applicants directed to surrender within two weeks; upon arrest, release on bond of Rs. 50,000 each with two sureties on standard conditions.

Suhas Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 9TH CHAITHRA, 1943

¶5

Bail Appl.No.1737 OF 2021

¶6

CRIME NO.531/2020 OF Tanur Police Station , Malappuram

¶7

PETITIONER/S:

¶8

1 SUHAS AGED 25 YEARS, S/O KOYA, KOZHISSERI HOUSE, TANUR P.O. MALAPPURAM – 676302.

¶9

2 ASHRAF, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O MUHAMMEDKUTTY, METHUKAYIL HOUSE,TANUR-P.O MALAPPURAM – 676302.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.K.P.SHEREEF

¶11

RESPONDENT/S:

¶12

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM – 682031.

¶13

R1 BY SRI.SANTHOSH PETER SR PP

¶14

OTHER PRESENT:

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

Bail Appl.No.1737 OF 2021

¶17

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

Dated this the 30th day of March 2021

¶20

This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.

¶21

The applicants are accused 1 and 2 in Crime

¶22

No.531/2020 of Tanur Police Station for having

¶23

allegedly committed the offences punishable under Sections 323, 326 and 341 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C.

¶24

The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 30.06.2020 at about 9.30 AM, the applicants in

¶25

furtherance of common intention, due to previous enmity towards the de facto complainant, wrongfully restrained

¶26

him and thereafter assaulted him by means of dangerous weapons like iron pipes, causing a fracture to his right hand and thus committed the offences.

¶27

The applicants state that the allegations are

¶28

not true and that the de facto complainant is a

¶29

¶30

Bail Appl.No.1737 OF 2021

¶31

fisherman and that he was selling fish near the 2nd applicant’s grocery shop. Both the shops were set on fire by some miscreants on 26.06.2020 and the 2nd applicant allegedly filed a complaint before the police. The de facto complainant had doubted the 2nd applicant’s role in the alleged act of arson and on 30.06.2020 a mob headed by the de facto complainant rushed towards the shop of the 2nd applicant and he had fled away from there to save himself. It is stated that because of that enmity, the de facto complainant had foisted a false case against the applicants and that he had actually met with an accident in which he caused the fracture and not due to an assault by the

¶32

applicants. The applicants, therefore, seek pre-arrest bail.

¶33

Heard the learned Counsel for the applicants and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶34

The learned Public Prosecutor admits that the

¶35

applicants have no criminal antecedents, but it is pointed out that the weapon, which was allegedly used

¶36

¶37

Bail Appl.No.1737 OF 2021

¶38

by the applicants for causing the grievous hurt, is yet to be recovered, and therefore, custodial interrogation of the applicants is necessary and the application for bail is opposed on that ground.

¶39

After having heard the submission on both sides,

¶40

I find that apart from a fracture of the right hand of the de facto complainant, he has not sustained any other injuries. There is also some delay in lodging the F.I.R. because only after the treatment was completed that the de facto complainant had approached the police with the complaint. The applicants have no criminal antecedents and they are not likely to flee from justice. Under the circumstances, I find no necessity for custodial interrogation of the applicants as they are willing to cooperate with the investigation.

¶41

In the result, the bail application is allowed and

¶42

the applicants are directed to surrender before the investigating officer within two weeks. In the event of arrest, after interrogation and recovery, the

¶43

¶44

Bail Appl.No.1737 OF 2021

¶45

applicants shall be released on bail on the execution of a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) each, with two solvent sureties for the like amount

¶46

each, to the satisfaction of the investigating officer, and on the following conditions:

¶47

(i) They shall not influence or intimidate witnesses or tamper with evidence;

¶48

(ii) They shall appear before the investigating officer as and when called for and shall cooperate with the investigation; and

¶49

(iii) During the bail period, they shall not get involved in any similar offences.

¶50

In case of breach of the bail conditions, the

¶51

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

court.

Sd/-

ASHOK MENON

JUDGE

dkr

Suhas v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suhas 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

N.V. George Vs State of Kerala

Sajeev Karun Vs State of Kerala

Rasheed Vs State of Kerala

Saneesh K Vs State of Kerala

Shambhu Vs State of Kerala

Rino Thomas Vs State of Kerala