Partly allowed

Shyju v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC1 Feb 2021Bail Appl./378/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala, in two connected bail applications, granted anticipatory bail to some accused persons involved in a violent scuffle following Panchayat elections while denying it to the second accused who allegedly caused grievous injury to the complainant using a stick.

What did the court decide?

BA No.378/2021 allowed; BA No.578/2021 allowed in part, directing surrendered inspection and regular bail application for the second accused, while releasing others on bail with bond and conditions.

Shyju 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

MONDAY, THE 01ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 12TH MAGHA,1942

¶5

Bail Appl..No.378 OF 2021

¶6

CRIME NO.1692/2020 OF Chathannoor Police Station , Kollam

¶7

PETITIONER/S:

¶8

1 SHYJU AGED 37 YEARS THUNDUVILA VEEDU, CHIRAKKARATHAZHAM P.O., KALLUVATHUKKAL, KOLLAM 691578

¶9

2 GIRISH AGED 32 YEARS KUNNIL VEEDU, CHATHANNOOR, KOLLAM 691578

¶10

3 PRAKASH AGED 48 YEARS NANDANAM, EDAVATTOM, CHIRAKKARA, KALLUVATHUKKAL, KOLLAM. 691578

¶11

4 SUNILAL AGED 45 YEARS BUNGLAVIL VEEDU, EDAVATTOM, CHIRAKKARATHAZHAM, KOLLAM. 691578

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.C.Y.VINOD KUMAR

¶13

RESPONDENT/S:

¶14

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

¶15

2 ADDL.R2 VIJESH.C.R AGED 31 YEARS S/O RAMANI, RESIDING AT KUZHIYATHU VEEDU, EDAVATTOM, CHIRAKKARA P.O., KALLUVATHUKKAL, KOLLAM- 691 578 . IS IMPLEADED AS PER THE ORDER DATED 1.2.2021 IN CRL.M.A.NO.1/2021

¶16

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR R2 BY ADV. BIJITH S.KHAN

¶17

OTHER PRESENT:

¶18

SMT.V.SREEJA-PP

¶19

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.02.2021, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..578/2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶21

PRESENT

¶22

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON

¶23

MONDAY, THE 01ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 12TH MAGHA,1942 Bail Appl..No.578 OF 2021

¶24

CRIME NO.1692/2020 OF Chathannoor Police Station , Kollam

¶25

PETITIONER/S:

¶26

1 BIJU AGED 33 YEARS MADATHILKULATHIL KIZHAKKATH, KARAMCODE P.O., CHIRAKKARA, MEENAD, KOLLAM. 691579

¶27

2 JITHIN AGED 22 YEARS NANDANAM, ULIYANADU, KARAMCODE, KOLLA, 691579

¶28

BY ADV. SRI.C.Y.VINOD KUMAR

¶29

RESPONDENT/S:

¶30

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

¶31

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶32

OTHER PRESENT:

¶33

SMT.V.SREEJA-PP

¶34

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.02.2021, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..378/2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

BA 378 & 578/2021

O R D E R

BA Nos.378 and 578 of 2021

¶39

------------------------------------Dated this the 1^st day of February, 2021

¶40

These are applications seeking anticipatory bail filed under Section 438 Cr.PC.

¶41

The applicants in BA No.378/2021 are accused 4 to 7, while the applicants in BA No.578/2021 are accused 2 and 3 in Crime No.1692/2020 of Chathannur Police Station for having allegedly committed offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 506, 323, 326 and 307 R/W 149 of IPC.

¶42

The prosecution case, in brief, is that following the Panchayat Elections in which the wife of the first accused was a candidate from Ward No.9 of the Edavattom Grama Panchayat, there was a victory procession by the de facto complainant and others on 16.12.2020 at about 7.30 p.m. and in

¶43

BA 378 & 578/2021

¶44

¶45

consequent to that there was a scuffle between the rival political groups and both sides sustained injuries. There was hurling abuses by both sides. The de facto complainant and others were also involved in another Crime, i.e. Crime No.1691/2020, of the same Police Station. The applicants state that the allegations are not true and that they are innocent. They do not have any criminal antecedents. Hence, they may be granted pre-arrest bail.

¶46

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicants and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶47

The learned Prosecutor admits that the applicants do not have any criminal antecedents. Going by the overt acts attributable to the applicants and the other accused, it is seen that it was the first accused, who used a chopper and inflicted injuries on the head of the de facto complainant. There was multiple lacerated injuries

¶48

¶49

BA 378 & 578/2021

¶50

caused on the scalp of the de facto complainant. The second accused allegedly used a stick and fractured his hand, while the third accused allegedly used a rock and hit him on his head with that rock causing injuries to him. Going by the injuries sustained, it is seen that it was the second accused, who caused grievous hurt on the de facto complainant's hand. The first accused has already been arrested and the weapon allegedly used by the applicants and the first accused have already been recovered. Considering the fact that it was the second accused who caused grievous injury to the de facto complainant, anticipatory bail cannot be granted to him. All the other applicants are entitled to anticipatory bail.

¶51

In the result, BA No.378/2021 is allowed and BA No.578/2021 is allowed in part. The applicants are directed to surrender before the investigating officer within two weeks. In the

¶52

¶53

BA 378 & 578/2021

¶54

event of their arrest, after interrogation, the second accused 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. The other applicants shall be released on bail on execution of a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) each with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the investigating officer, and on the following further conditions:

¶55

(i) They shall appear before the

¶56

investigating officer as and when called for and co-operate with the investigation.

¶57

(ii) They shall not tamper with evidence or intimidate or influence the witnesses.

¶58

(iii) They shall not get involved in any similar offence during the currency of the bail.

¶59

In case of breach of any of the above bail

¶60

BA 378 & 578/2021

¶61

¶62

conditions, the prosecution is at liberty to approach the jurisdictional court for cancellation of the bail.

¶63

Sd/-

¶64

ASHOK MENON JUDGE

¶65

Shyju v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shyju 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

Ahammad Vs State of Kerala

Pushparaja a D Vs State of Kerala

Ananthu R Nair Vs State of Kerala

Adharsh Vs State of Kerala

Adarsh Vs State of Kerala

Arun Vs State of Kerala