Allowed

Asrudheen K v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC16 Feb 2021Bail Appl./395/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail application, the High Court of Kerala granted bail to the 5th accused in a case involving murder and grievous hurt. The court noted flaws in the investigation and identification, noting the absence of prior enmity and lack of specific overt acts attributed to the applicant compared to others already on bail.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted bail conditioned to appear before IO within two weeks and execute a bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties subject to standard conditions.

Asrudheen K 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 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 27TH MAGHA,1942

¶5

Bail Appl..No.395 OF 2021

¶6

CRIME NO.457/2020 OF Kasaba Police Station, Palakkad

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

1 ASRUDHEEN K AGED 24 YEARS S/O KAJA HUSSAIN 3/526, SHANKUVARATHODU, KALAPATHY PALAKKAD, PIN 678003

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.C.J.ANTONY LOYED

¶10

RESPONDENT/S:

¶11

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

¶12

R1 BY SRI.SANTHOSH PETER SR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

Bail Appl..No.395 OF 2021

¶15

¶16

ORDER

¶17

Dated this the 16th day of February 2021

¶18

The applicant is the 5th accused in Crime No.
457/2020 of the Kasaba Police Station, Palakkad, for
having allegedly committed offences punishable under
Sections 452, 324, 326, 307 and 120B r/w Section 34 of the
IPC and under Section 27 of the Indian Arms Act.

¶19

2. Prosecution case in brief is that the applicant
along with the others, allegedly hatched a conspiracy to
murder the defacto complainant, and in furtherance of the
common intention, the applicant and the other accused
trespassed into the tea shop of the defacto complainant on
27.06.2020 between 06.30 a.m and 06.45 a.m, and
thereafter assaulted him with dangerous weapons like
swords and caused grievous injuries to him, attempting to
commit murder.

¶20

3. The applicant states that the allegations are not

¶21

true. The First Information Statement of the defacto

¶22

¶23

Bail Appl..No.395 OF 2021

¶24

complainant, would indicate that on 26.06.2020 between
06.30 a.m – 06.45 am, two persons names Vishnu and Raju,
both, well known to the defacto complainant and having
previous enmity towards him, came to his tea shop in a
Tata Sumo car and on a motorcycle and allegedly attacked
him with dangerous weapons like sword and inflicted
grievous injuries on him and attempted to commit murder.
He sustained a fracture of the elbow joint and other serious
injuries. The other persons who accompanied the
aforesaid Vishnu and Raju, were identifiable.
Subsequently, the version takes a turn and the present
accused are arrested and Vishnu and Raju are deleted
from the array of accused. CCTV footages are relied upon
by the investigation officer to identify the present culprits
including the applicant. The present allegation is that
accused Nos. 1 to 3 were armed with dangerous weapons
like sword and attacked the defacto complainant and
attempted to commit murder. The applicant who is the 5th
accused also had accompanied them and joined them in
furtherance of common intention.

¶25

¶26

Bail Appl..No.395 OF 2021

¶27

3. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant

¶28

and the learned Public Prosecutor were heard.

¶29

4. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant
would submit that the entire investigation is flawed and the
incorporation of the applicant as accused is also assailant
of defacto complainant without any substantial basis. The
defacto complainant had initially identified two persons
named Vishnu and Raju who were known to him, and
reasons to assault him. This itself would belie the base of
the prosecution case. The version of the de facto
complainant is not that he had not identified his assailants
or that they were some identifiable persons. Specific
version of the defacto complainant is that he had identified
the assailant with clarity, and therefore, the applicant
could not be satisfactorily incorporated as the assailant. It
is also pertinent to know that the prosecution version now
is that the applicants were members of SDPI and that the
defacto complainant and others being members of RSS
were in inimical terms. The applicants did not have any
previous enmity towards the defacto complainant and the

¶30

Bail Appl..No.395 OF 2021

¶31

¶32

allegation now is that they had attacked the defacto
complainant,solely due to political reasons. Accused Nos.
1 to 4 were already granted bail after their arrest. The
applicant who is the 5th accused is apprehending arrest.
There is no specific overtact attributed to him apart from
the fact that he was also a member of the gang that
attacked the defacto complainant. The version of the
defacto complainant is riddled with suspicion and that the
identity of the applicant as one of the assailants is doubtful.
He has no criminal antecedents also.

¶33

Hence, this application is allowed. The applicant shall
surrender before the investigating officer within two weeks
from today. After interrogation, in the event of his arrest,
he shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for a
sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) with two
solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of
the investigating officer and on the following conditions:

¶34

(i) The applicant shall appear before the
Investigating Officer as and when called for.

¶35

(ii) He shall not tamper with evidence,

¶36

Bail Appl..No.395 OF 2021

¶37

¶38

intimidate or infuence witnesses.l

¶39

(iii) He shall not get involved in similar

¶40

offences during the bail period.

¶41

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

¶42

Sd/-

¶43

ASHOK MENON

¶44

JUDGE

¶45

avs

Asrudheen K v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Asrudheen K 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

Anas Paral Vs State of Kerala

Vineeth B. Vs State of Kerala

Bindu Nk Vs State of Kerala

Vishnu Salman Vs State of Kerala

Anokh Vs State of Kerala

Praveen Kumar E Vs State of Kerala