Allowed

Ajmal K v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC22 Mar 2021Bail Appl./593/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed an application for anticipatory bail filed by accused persons charged with offences under the IPC. The court found that the nature of injuries suggested the de facto complainant was the primary aggressor, allowing bail with conditions regarding appearance, non-contact with witnesses, and movement restrictions.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; surrender directed within two weeks; release on ₹50,000 bond with conditions; entry into jurisdictional limits prohibited.

Ajmal 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

MONDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 1ST CHAITHRA, 1943 Bail Appl.No.593 OF 2021

¶5

CRIME NO.17/2021 OF Manjeri Police Station , Malappuram

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

1 AJMAL K, AGED 32 YEARS, SON OF MOIDEEN, KANNIYAN HOUSE, KIDENGAZHI, KARUVAMBRAM P.O., MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT – 676123.

¶8

2 ASHRAF K AGED 36 YEARS, SON OF MOIDEEN, KANNIYAN HOUSE, KIDENGAZHI, KARUVAMBRAM P.O., MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN – 676123.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.K.RAKESH

¶10

RESPONDENT/S:

¶11

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

¶12

2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER MANJERI POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT – 676121.

¶13

Bail Appl.No.593 OF 2021

¶14

¶15

3 AMEER ABBAS AGED 35 YEARS, S/O. HAMSA, ODUMMALAKUNDIL HOUSE, KIDANGAZHI, MANJERI, PIN - 676123.*

¶16

*IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 12/02/2021 IN CRL.M.A. NO.1/2021.

¶17

R1-R2 BY SMT.V.SREEJA-PP R3 BY ADV. S.RAJEEV R3 BY ADV. SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN R3 BY ADV. SRI.V.VINAY R3 BY ADV. SRI.K.ANAND

¶18

OTHER PRESENT:

¶19

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

¶21

Bail Appl.No.593 OF 2021

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

Dated this the 22nd day of March 2021

¶24

This is an application for anticipatory bail under

¶25

Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.

¶26

The applicants are accused 1 and 2 in Crime

¶27

No.17/2021 of Manjeri Police Station for having

¶28

allegedly committed the offences punishable under Sections 341, 324 and 308 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. Subsequently, an offence under Section 326 has

¶29

also been incorporated.

¶30

The prosecution case, in brief, is that on

¶31

08.01.2021 at about 8.45 PM the applicants in

¶32

furtherance of the common intention to cause hurt to

¶33

the de facto complainant brandished a knife and he

¶34

evaded the attack with his hand, as a result of which

¶35

he sustained a fracture of the neck of the third right

¶36

metacarpal and a lacerated wound on various parts of

¶37

the body. Had the injury sustained on vital organs

¶38

¶39

Bail Appl.No.593 OF 2021

¶40

could have caused death and the applicants had knowledge about that and thus attempted to commit culpable homicide.

¶41

The applicants state that the allegations are not true and it was the de facto complainant, who had actually attacked the 1st accused with a knife causing a very grave injury on his body. The wound certificate produced indicates that the 1st applicant had sustained a cut injury measuring 30 x 5 x 2 cm. on the left side of his trunk. There was another cut injury measuring 10 x 3 x 15 cm. also on the lateral side of the right upper arm. That apart there was another cut injury measuring 4 x 0.5 x 0.5 cm. on the axilla of the left arm. All these injuries were caused by means of the dangerous weapon like a knife. The applicants state that the de facto complainant was the aggressor, and therefore, they seek pre-arrest bail.

¶42

Heard the learned Counsel for the applicants and

¶43

the learned Public Prosecutor as also the learned Counsel appearing for the de facto complainant.

¶44

¶45

Bail Appl.No.593 OF 2021

¶46

The learned Counsel appearing for the de facto

¶47

complainant has produced a number of documents, including the wound certificate. The wound certificate indicates that injury was sustained to the de facto complainant. None of those injuries are serious, but he has sustained a fracture to his right metacarpal, which indicates that there was a grievous hurt. Even though the 1st applicant has not sustained any grievous injury, the cut injury at three places indicates that there was a violent attack on him using a knife. It is a long injury on the trunk measuring 30 cms. long. The applicants have also produced photographs of the injury which is sustained by the 1st applicant. The learned Counsel appearing for the applicants submits that the applicants had earlier attacked the de facto complainant and the members of his family, including

¶48

his minor daughter and wife after trespassing into his house. In consequence of which Crime No.737/2020 was

¶49

registered against the applicants for offences punishable under Sections 342, 323, 448 and 294(b) of

¶50

¶51

Bail Appl.No.593 OF 2021

¶52

the I.P.C. The de facto complainant submits that he was earlier a member of the Muslim League, thereafter

¶53

he crossed flags and worked against the Muslim League, which provoked the applicants and that is the reason why they had attacked the de facto complainant. The de facto complainant is the accused in Crime No.16/2021

¶54

for having allegedly committed the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323 and 308 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. Considering the injury sustained by the 1st applicant and the de facto complainant, even though the de facto complainant has sustained a grievous hurt, more serious injuries with a dangerous weapon like

¶55

knife was sustained by the 1st applicant. Under the circumstances, it is clear that the de facto complainant was the aggressor. The applicants are

¶56

willing to cooperate with the investigation, and

¶57

therefore, I find no reason for custodial interrogation of the applicants.

¶58

In the result, the bail application is allowed

¶59

and the applicants are directed to surrender before the

¶60

¶61

Bail Appl.No.593 OF 2021

¶62

investigating officer within two weeks. In the event of

¶63

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

¶64

(i) They shall not influence or intimidate witnesses or tamper with evidence;

¶65

(ii) They shall appear before the investigating officer on all Saturdays between 9.00 AM and 12.00 noon for a period of two months or till the final report is filed, whichever is earlier; and

¶66

(iii)During the bail period, they shall not get involved in any similar offences.

¶67

In case of breach of the bail conditions, the

¶68

prosecution shall be at liberty to apply for cancellation of the bail before the jurisdictional court.

¶69

Bail Appl.No.593 OF 2021

¶70

¶71

In view of the fact that there are case and counter-case against the applicants and the de facto complainant, there is every possibility of further aggravation of their rivalry. Therefore, the applicants shall not enter the jurisdictional limits of Manjeri Police Station except for compliance of condition No.(ii).

Sd/-

ASHOK MENON

JUDGE

dkr

Ajmal K v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajmal 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

Muhammed Faisal P Vs State of Kerala

Sudheer P.K Vs State of Kerala

Rino Thomas Vs State of Kerala

Albert Augustine K.J Vs State of Kerala

Renjith Pannackal Ittykunju Vs State of Kerala

Anas T Vs State of Kerala