Dismissed

Nazim N., v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC13 Sept 2021Bail Appl./5825/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala rejected the anticipatory bail application of four accused persons in a case involving assault, weapon use, and abusive language against an 18-year-old victim. The court found no justification for bail given the grave nature of the offences and potential injustice to the injured boy.

What did the court decide?

The petitioners were directed to surrender before the investigating officer and cooperate with the investigation; bail application dismissed.

Nazim N., Vs State of Kerala — Cheating and Forgery | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

B.A.No.5825 of 2021

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V.

¶6

MONDAY, THE 13^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 22ND BHADRA, 1943

¶7

BAIL APPL. NO. 5825 OF 2021

¶8

(CRIME NO.977 OF 2021 OF SOORANAD POLICE STATION, KOLLAM)

¶9

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 4

¶10

1 NAZIM N., AGED 20 YEARS S/O.NAVAS, KALLAYIL KIZHAKKETHIL, KAMPALADY, PORUVAZHY P.O., KOLLAM-690 520. 2 NIYAS, AGED 24 YEARS S/O.SHANU, NIYAS MANZIL, NOORANAD, NOORANAD P.O., ALAPPUZHA-690 504. 3 SHAHANAS S., AGED 24 YEARS S/O.SHAHUL HAMEED, THUNDIL PADINJATTATHIL, KAMPALADY, PORUVAZHY P.O., KOLLAM-690 520. 4 AJMALSHA KABEER, AGED 24 YEARS S/O.KABEER, KANDALAMTHUNDIL, ALFIYA MANZIL, AMBALATHUMBHAGOM P.O., PORUVAZHY, KOLLAM-690 520. BY ADVS. S.SHANAVAS KHAN S.INDU

¶11

RESPONDENT/S:

¶12

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.

¶13

OTHER PRESENT:

¶14

MANU.P.G -SR.P.P

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

B.A.No.5825 of 2021

ORDER

The petitioners are accused Nos. 1 to 4 in Crime No.977/2021 of Sooranad Police Station, Kollam registered for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 308, 294(b) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal code. Apprehending arrest this application has

¶20

been moved by these petitioners under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶21

The prosecution case is that on 25.07.2021 at about 8.30 p.m while the defacto complainant was in a shop so as to collect certain articles for his business, these petitioners have trespassed into the shop and attacked him and caused injuries. They have also abused him in filthy language, hacked him with a sword, beaten with an iron rod and caused injuries. Thus the accused have committed the aforesaid offences.

¶22

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶23

According to the learned counsel for the petitioners these petitioners are youngsters having no criminal antecedents and hence they apprehend arrest. In fact the first accused was attacked by the defacto complainant and he sustained fracture and of course he has

¶24

B.A.No.5825 of 2021

¶25

¶26

not preferred any complaint against the defacto complainant. But they were falsely implicated in this case at the instigation of the defacto complainant.

¶27

The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application and produced the wound certificate of the defacto complainant.

¶28

It is significant to note that the defacto complainant is a boy aged only 18 years. He was attacked by these petitioners while he was in a shop in the town. He was beaten with an iron rod and also hacked him with a sword which caused injuries on his head and back of the body. He was immediately rushed to the hospital where he has narrated the injuries suffered by him and the history has been recorded by the doctor who treated him at about 10.14 p.m, ie; immediately after the alleged incident. As referred above, the petitioners are youngsters and the defacto complainant can be only be considered as a boy aged 18 years. Though the learned counsel has stated that the first petitioner and the first accused in the case had sustained nasal bone fracture in the attack by the defacto complainant, no crime has been registered against him. As such no materials are available on record to infer that the defacto complainant had earlier attacked the petitioners and that resulted in the unfortunate incident. The main thing to be noted is that the defacto complainant has gone to the shop to collect certain articles

¶29

B.A.No.5825 of 2021

¶30

¶31

for his retail business. So definitely he was not having any kind of weapon with him. These petitioners, though aged only 24 and 21 years, respectively, were carrying weapons and with those weapons, they had attacked the defacto complainant. They have also showered obscene words towards him and the attack was in the night by about 9.45 p.m. No doubt the nature of the accusations levelled against these petitioners are grave and serious in nature. An order under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be passed by the court only in a judicious manner. When the nature of offences alleged are grave and much injustice is caused to the injured, a young boy, I find no justification in accepting the request of the petitioners to grant an order of pre-arrest bail.

¶32

The petitioners have to surrender before the investigating officer and co-operate with the investigation.

Dismissed.

Sd/-

SHIRCY V. JUDGE

smm

Nazim N., v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nazim N., 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

Jithoos Vs State of Kerala

Ahmed Kabeer Vs State of Kerala

Maharoof Vs State of Kerala

Ashokan Vs State of Kerala

Anilkumar Vs State of Kerala

T.J.Yohannan, Vs the State of Kerala