Dismissed

C.S.Subash Babu v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC7 Dec 2021Bail Appl./6392/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed an anticipatory bail application filed by the sixth accused in a criminal case involving alleged unlawful assembly, destruction of property, and assault. The judge held that the petitioner's violation of a civil court order and the need for interrogation by other unidentified accused precluded the grant of bail under Section 438 CrPC.

What did the court decide?

Disallowance of anticipatory bail application.

C.S.Subash Babu 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 GOPINATH P.

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 7^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021 / 16TH AGRAHAYANA, 1943

¶5

BAIL APPL. NO. 6392 OF 2021 Crime No.1777/2021 of Thiruvalla Police Station

¶6

PETITIONER/ACCUSED No.6:

¶7

C.S.SUBASH BABU AGED 49 YEARS, S/O.C.K.SOMANADHAN, CHENNATTIL HOUSE, THENGELI P.O., THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT - 689 106.

¶8

BY ADV NIREESH MATHEW

¶9

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶10

STATE OF KERALA REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.

¶11

ADV. SMT. S. SEETHA, SR. P.P.

¶12

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.12.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

B.A. No.6392/2021

-2-

O R D E R

The petitioner is the 6^th accused in Crime No.1777/2021 of Thiruvalla Police Station, Pathanamthitta District alleging commission of offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, ,194 (b), 324, 354, 308, 427 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908.

¶17

The allegation against the petitioner is that on 08-08-2021 at 11.45 p.m accused Nos.1 to 7 together with 30 other identifiable persons unlawfully assembled together with deadly weapons and in violation of the order of the civil court and cut open a pathway using a JCB. It is alleged that they destroyed a wall and cut down trees causing a loss of Rs. 2 lakhs to the de facto complainant and her family. It is also alleged that the de facto complainant's father-in-law came out of the house, he was assaulted by one of the accused using a sword causing injury on his left elbow. It is also alleged that one of the other accused used an iron rod and attacked him again resulting in injuries. The de facto complainant who was a pregnant lady tried to intervene and then some among the accused verbally abused her and pushed her down and has also threw a country made bomb creating a panic situation.

¶18

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the only nonbailable offences alleged against the petitioner are those under Section 354, 308 and Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. It is submitted that even if the entire prosecution case is taken at face value, there are no

¶19

B.A. No.6392/2021

¶20

-3-

¶21

allegations which would suggest that the petitioner/6^th respondent committed any of the offences under Sections 354, 308 or Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act. It is submitted that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case and further that the petitioner is not a party to the civil court proceedings between the family of the de facto complainant and others regarding the pathway.

¶22

The learned Public Prosecutor on instructions would submit that the petitioner has been clearly identified by the de facto complainant. It is submitted that in violation of a court order the petitioner who is also a beneficiary of the pathway had tresspassed into the property of the de facto complainant and using a JCB had broken down a wall and cut and removed trees for the purpose of creating pathway to a colony situated on the back side of the property belonging to the de facto complainant. It is submitted that a person who violated the court order is not entitled to the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and that no special circumstances have been made out for grant of anticipatory bail. It is also submitted that since several of other accused are yet to be identified, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is absolutely necessary in the matter.

¶23

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the fact that the petitioner alleged to have taken part in an action in violation of the order of the civil court, though he was not a party to the said civil case, and also considering the fact that several of the accused are yet

¶24

B.A. No.6392/2021

¶25

-4-

¶26

to be identified, I am of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to anticipatory bail. Hence the bail application filed by the petitioner/6^th accused in Crime No.1777/2021 of Thiruvalla Police Station, Pathanamthitta District will stand dismissed. However it is made clear that it is open to the petitioner to move before the jurisdictional court for bail, which shall be considered by the jurisdictional court untrammelled by any observation in this order.

¶27

Sd/- GOPINATH P. JUDGE

¶28

AMG

C.S.Subash Babu v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.S.Subash Babu 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

James Joseph Vs State of Kerala

Xxxxx Vs State of Kerala

Kabeer P.T, Vs the State of Kerala

Dhaneep Vs State of Kerala

Xxx Vs State of Kerala

Vijayakumar Vs State of Kerala