Allowed

Subhash v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC17 Mar 2021Bail Appl./2045/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC was filed by two accused for alleged assault, voluntarily causing hurt, criminal intimidation, and common intention. The High Court granted bail, noting discrepancies in injury reports and FIR delay, directing surrender within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted with a bond of Rs. 50,000/- each and two sureties; directed to surrender within two weeks.

Subhash Vs State of Kerala — Cheating and Forgery | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 26TH PHALGUNA, 1942 Bail Appl.No.2045 OF 2021

¶5

CRIME NO.26/2021 OF PANTHEERANKAVU POLICE STATION , Kozhikode

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

1 SUBHASH AGED 62 YEARS AMMA NIVAS, PUTHOOR VADAKKAYIL, PANTHEERANKAVU P.O., KOZHIKODE – 673019.

¶8

2 SURJITH AGED 27 YEARS AMMA NIVAS, PUTHOOR VADAKKAYIL, PANTHEERANKAVU P.O., KOZHIKODE – 673019.

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.MANU TOM SRI.K.R.JITHIN SHRI.BALAMURALI K.P. SHRI.SHAJI T.M.

¶10

RESPONDENT/S:

¶11

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM – 682031. R1 BY SRI.SANTHOSH PETER SR PP

¶12

OTHER PRESENT:

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

Bail Appl.No.2045 OF 2021

¶15

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

Dated this the 17th day of March 2021

¶18

This is an application for anticipatory bail under

¶19

Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.

¶20

The applicants are accused 1 and 2 in Crime No.26/2021 of Pantheerankavu Police Station for having

¶21

allegedly committed the offences punishable under Sections 341, 326 and 506 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C.

¶22

The prosecution case, in brief, is that on

¶23

17.01.2021 at about 10.00 AM, the applicants in furtherance of common intention, allegedly restrained

¶24

the de facto complainant wrongfully, and hit him with a hammer on his face, as a result of which he lost two of

¶25

his molar teeth and he was also intimidated, and thus committed the offences.

¶26

The applicants state that the allegations are

¶27

not true and that there was a dispute between the

¶28

¶29

Bail Appl.No.2045 OF 2021

¶30

applicants and the de facto complainant, who is their neighbour. The applicants are father and son

¶31

receptively. The 1st applicant is a senior citizen. They do not have any criminal antecedents. In connection with the disputed pathway, there was an altercation between the applicants and the de facto complainant on the previous day. On 17.01.2021 at about 10.00 AM, there is no likelihood of the accident being taken place, because the 1st applicant’s daughter was getting married on that day as is evident from Annexures 3 and 4 and in the invitation card it is stated that the Muhoortham of the marriage is between 11.00 AM and 12.00 noon, and therefore, there is no

¶32

possibility of the applicants being involved in a fight with the de facto complainant. It is also pointed out that the F.I.R. was registered only after three days

¶33

and the delay is not explained. Under the

¶34

circumstances, it is prayed that the applicants may be granted pre-arrest bail. Their application for pre-

¶35

arrest was dismissed by the Sessions Court, and

¶36

¶37

Bail Appl.No.2045 OF 2021

¶38

therefore, they seek the indulgence of this Court.

¶39

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

¶40

The learned Public Prosecutor admits that the applicants have no criminal antecedents. The wound certificate was read over to this Court by the learned Public Prosecutor. Apart from tenderness, there is no apparent visible injury on the face or the cheek of the de facto complainant. But he has lost two of his teeth and, bleeding from the month. Had the applicants hit the de facto complainant with a hammer, there would definitely have been corresponding injuries on the side of the face, which is not noticed. Moreover, it is also pertinent to note that the de facto complainant had gone to the hospital and returned the same day, but no police intimation was given regarding that. In his F.I.Statement he has stated that the applicants and others had come and beat him with a hammer. But he had

¶41

not specified as to who had hit with the hammer. All these points put together, I find that there is serious

¶42

¶43

Bail Appl.No.2045 OF 2021

¶44

doubt regarding the complicity of the applicants. They do not have any criminal antecedents and they are willing to cooperate with the investigation.

¶45

Resultantly, the bail application is allowed and

¶46

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

Bail Appl.No.2045 OF 2021

¶51

¶52

In case of breach of the bail conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to apply for cancellation of the bail before the jurisdictional

court.

Sd/-

ASHOK MENON

JUDGE

dkr

Subhash v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subhash 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

Santhosh K Vs State of Kerala

Dhanesh Prabhakaran Vs State of Kerala

Biju T.M Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Noushad. K Vs State of Kerala

Purushothaman V.S Vs State of Kerala

Sindhu N.G. Vs State of Kerala