Allowed

K.G. Sunil Kumar @ Sunil v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC12 Mar 2021Bail Appl./454/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed an application for anticipatory bail to the petitioner, the 1st accused in a case involving assault punishable under Sections 323, 324, 326, and 506 of the IPC. The court found custodial interrogation unnecessary.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for anticipatory bail is allowed subject to conditions: appearance before IO within two weeks, bond for Rs.25,000 with two sureties, and cooperation with investigation.

K.G. Sunil Kumar @ Sunil 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 V.G.ARUN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 21ST PHALGUNA, 1942

¶5

Bail Appl..No.454 OF 2021

¶6

CRIME NO.1044/2020 OF Hill Palace Police Station, Ernakulam

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

K.G. SUNIL KUMAR @ SUNIL AGED 46 YEARS S/O. GOPI, KURUNNOTHPARAMBIL HOUSE, CHATHARI, TRIPUNITHURA-682 301.

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.THOMAS T.VARGHESE SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE SMT.ACHU SUBHA ABRAHAM SMT.K.R.MONISHA

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

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

¶12

2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER HILL PALACE POLICE STATION, TRIPUNITHURA-682 301.

¶13

PP AJITH MURALI

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

Bail Appl..No.454 OF 2021

¶16

¶17

ORDER

¶18

Dated this the 12th day of March 2021

¶19

The petitioner is the 1^st accused in Crime No.1044/2020 of Hill Palace Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 326, 506 R/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶20

According to the prosecution at about 8 p.m on 25.12.2020, petitioner along with the other accused assaulted the

¶21

defacto complainant, his wife, mother and sister with deadly weapons, resulting in the defacto complainant's sister sustaining fractures.

¶22

In the application for bail was moved before the Sessions Court by the petitioner along with the other accused, Annexure 12 order was passed by the learned Sessions Judge, granting bail to accused Nos.2, 3 and 5 and refusing to grant bail to the petitioner.

¶23

According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the incident did not occur in the manner alleged by the police. It is submitted that the defacto complainant and his brother are hard core criminals, involved in various crimes, including crimes under

¶24

¶25

Bail Appl..No.454 OF 2021

¶26

the NDPS Act. Annexure Nos.1 and 2 are produced in support of the said contention. It is submitted that, a dilapidated building near the petitioner's house was being frequented by the defacto complainant and his gang for their nefarious activities, including use and distribution of drugs. At the instance of the Tripunithura Municipality the building was demolished, despite which the culprits attempted to continue their activities. This was resisted by the petitioner and family members, including the petitioner's sister-inlaw, who is the Municipal Councilor representing that ward. This led to friction between the defacto complainant's gang and the petitioner's family and resulted in the petitioner and his family members being beaten up brutally by the defacto complainant and his gang. Annexure Nos.3 to 6 are produced to substantiate the said contention.

¶27

The specific contention, based on Annexure 7 F.I.R and the statement given by the petitioner while in hospital is that, by around 2.30 p.m on 25.12.2020 he was beaten up severely, resulting in his hospitalization. Crime No.1044 of 2020 was registered much later, alleging that the petitioner had assaulted the defacto complainant's sister. According to the learned counsel, the

¶28

Bail Appl..No.454 OF 2021

¶29

¶30

defacto complainant's sister had come to the scene of occurrence to create further trouble and had sustained the fracture due to a fall.

¶31

I have heard the learned Public Prosecutor, who opposed the application for anticipatory bail but admitted that the defacto complainant and others have criminal antecedents and the petitioner is not involved in any other offence.

¶32

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor, I find custodial interrogation of this petitioner to be unnecessary in the facts and circumstances of the case, especially since the other accused were granted anticipatory bail. In the result the prayer for anticipatory bail is allowed subject to the following conditions:

¶33

(i) The petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer within two weeks.

¶34

(ii) In the event of the petitioner's arrest, he shall be released on executing a bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the investigating officer.

¶35

Bail Appl..No.454 OF 2021

¶36

¶37

(iii) Petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation and shall not intimidate or try to influence the witnesses.

¶38

Violation of any of the conditions herein will entitle the

¶39

investigating officer to seek cancellation of bail.

Sd/-

V.G.ARUN

JUDGE

mpm

K.G. Sunil Kumar @ Sunil v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.G. Sunil Kumar @ Sunil 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sajeevan Vs State of Kerala

Jaffar Mm Vs State of Kerala

George Joseph @ Jinu Vs State of Kerala

Yusaf P.A. Vs State of Kerala

Vineesh Gopinath Vs the State of Kerala

Rahul Vs the Sub Inspector of Police