Allowed

Sivadasan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC2 Dec 2021Bail Appl./3701/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala considered a bail application under Section 438 CrPC by a petitioner charged with grievous hurt and criminal intimidation. Though the accusation was serious and the petitioner failed to surrender after a Sessions Court order, the Court granted bail conditional on surrender by a specified date.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed conditional upon surrender before the investigating officer on or before 09.12.2021, followed by production before the Magistrate.

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

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V.

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER 2021 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA, 1943

¶5

BAIL APPL. NO. 3701 OF 2021

¶6

CRIME NO.54 OF 2021 OF MELATHUR POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED :-

¶8

SIVADASAN
AGED 60 YEARS
KOVILAKATH CHALAKKAL HOUSE, MANNARMALA P.O.
KARYAVATTAM AMSOM, DESOM, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK
MALAPPURAM, PIN – 679326

¶9

BY ADV C.DINESH

¶10

RESPONDENT :-

¶11

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

¶12

BY SRI.NOUSHAD.K.A- SR.PP

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
02.12.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

¶15

BAIL APPL. NO. 3701 OF 2021

¶16

ORDER

¶17

Apprehending arrest in connection with Crime No.54 of 2021 of Melattur Police Station, Malappuram District registered for the offences punishable under Sections 326 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioner/the sole accused has moved this application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶18

The prosecution allegation is that on 06.03.2021 at about 17.30 hours while the defacto complainant who is the brother of the petitioner was engaged with the work of sprinkling water to the plants, in his garden at his residence,the petitioner trespassed into his compound and attacked him with a wooden stick and caused severe injuries including fracture. Thereby, committed the aforesaid offences.

¶19

The learned counsel for the petitioner has a case

¶20

BAIL APPL. NO. 3701 OF 2021

¶21

¶22

that he was falsely implicated in the case by the defacto complaint to wreck vengeance upon him. In fact, he is totally innocent of the allegations levelled against him. But he apprehends unnecessary arrest and hence this application.

¶23

The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that

¶24

the bail application filed by this petitioner was considered by the learned Sessions Judge and he was directed him to surrender before the investigating officer within a period of 15 days by an order dated 22.04.2021. But he did not surrender before the investigating officer. The investigation of the case could not be proceeded with because of his failure to surrender before the investigating officer. Moreover, the defacto complainant has sustained grave injuries including fracture. The weapon used by the petitioner to inflict injuries has to be recovered. Hence, this pre-arrest bail application is vehemently opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶25

Heard both sides.

¶26

BAIL APPL. NO. 3701 OF 2021

¶27

¶28

The petitioner is a person aged 60 years. The

¶29

defacto complainant is his own brother. They are residing nearby. The wound certificate of the defacto complainant would show that he sustained fracture to his right leg as he was badly beaten by his brother, the petitioner. The weapon used by him is an iron rod. Immediately after the incident the defacto complainant was shifted to the hospital and he was referred to higher centre for expert management.

¶30

It is most significant to note that the learned Sessions judge has considered the bail application moved by him in detail and directed him to surrender before the investigating officer and to co-operate with the investigation of the case. But from the report submitted by the investigating officer it appears that this petitioner has not surrendered in compliance of the direction of the learned Sessions judge. Thereafter, he moved this court with this application and sought for pre-arrest bail.

¶31

The allegations levelled against this petitioner are

¶32

BAIL APPL. NO. 3701 OF 2021

¶33

¶34

grave and serious in nature. The place of occurrence is the residential compound of the defacto complainant. It appears that this petitioner has trespassed into his compound and attacked him with an iron rod and caused grievous injuries to him. He sustained fracture to his right leg below knee joint. He had to remain in the hospital for a pretty long time because of the gravity of the injuries sustained by him. Apart from that the petitioner did not comply with the direction of the learned Sessions Judge. Therefore, I think that this petitioner is not entitled for pre-arrest bail.

¶35

However, considering the fact that this petitioner is aged 60 years, I think that this application can be disposed of directing him to surrender before the investigating officer on or before 09.12.2021 . Upon his surrender, after recording his arrest and recovery if any, he shall be produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate. If any application for bail is moved by him, the same shall be considered and disposed of without any delay, preferably on

¶36

BAIL APPL. NO. 3701 OF 2021

¶37

¶38

the same day.

¶39

With these observations, this bail application is

disposed of.

Sd/-

SHIRCY V. JUDGE

SMA

Sivadasan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sivadasan 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

Pallipattu Raman Haridas Vs State of Kerala

Haneefa Vs State of Kerala

Derin Davis Vs State of Kerala

Riyasudeen@Manu, Vs State of Kerala

Stibin Vs State of Kerala

Arun.C., Vs State of Kerala