Partly allowed

Pranav v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC20 Sept 2021Bail Appl./6790/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought bail for offences under IPC including assault and mischief. Court rejected bail for first accused due to bad antecedents and causing injury. Granted bail to other two petitioners upon surrender for interrogation, subject to standard bail conditions.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed to petitioners 2 and 3 upon surrender for interrogation; bail application dismissed for petitioner 1.

Pranav Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V.

¶4

MONDAY, THE 20^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 29TH BHADRA, 1943

¶5

BAIL APPL. NO. 6790 OF 2021

¶6

CRIME NO.756 OF 2021 OF IRINJALAKUDA POLICE STATION

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 3 :-

¶8

1 PRANAV AGED 29 YEARS S/O.MOHANAN, RESIDING AT KARIPPAYE HOUSE, THALIYAKONAM, MADAYIKONAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT PIN 680 712

¶9

2 RANJITH AGED 26 YEARS S/O.GOPI, RESIDING AT PATTALAPARAMBIL HOUSE, THALIYAKONAM, MADAYIKONAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT PIN 680 712

¶10

3 NIDHEESH AGED 31 YEARS S/O.SUDHAKARAN, RESIDING AT PULIKKATHARA HOUSE, THALIYAKONAM, MADAYIKONAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT PIN 680 712

¶11

BY ADVS. PARVATHY S.KRISHNAN MITHUN P. AFSAL KHAN H.

¶12

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT :-

¶13

STATE OF KERALA REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 682031

¶14

SMT.SREEJA.V- SR.P.P

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

¶16

20.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

BAIL APPL. NO. 6790 OF 2021

¶18

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Apprehending arrest in connection with Crime

¶21

No.766 of 2021 of Irinjalakuda Police Station,

¶22

Thrissur District registered for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 452, 294(b), 506, 143,

¶23

147 and 148 r/w Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioners have filed this application.

¶24

The prosecution case is that these petitioners along with other accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapon had trespassed into the residential house of the defacto complainant on 05.08.2020 at about 7.00 pm and abused him in filthy language and manhandled him. The first accused hacked with a chopper causing injuries on the right hand of the defacto complainant. The other accused have also threatened him with dire

¶25

consequences and thereby, they have committed the aforesaid offences.

¶26

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

¶27

¶28

BAIL APPL. NO. 6790 OF 2021

¶29

The learned counsel for the petitioners has

¶30

raised a plea of false implication.

¶31

The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted

¶32

that the injury was caused by the first accused who was having a weapon with him. The other accused have

¶33

not inflicted any cut injury on the defacto complainant, though they have trespassed into the house of the defacto complainant and showered obscene words towards him. It is also pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor that the first accused is a hard-core criminal and he is involved in six other cases of similar nature. At the same time, it is fairly submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor

¶34

that the other petitioners have no criminal backgrounds.

¶35

On a perusal of the records, it clear that the place of occurrence is the residential house of the defacto complainant. The allegation is that the accused have trespassed into the residential house with common object to attack the defacto complainant. The first accused had inflicted injury on the defacto

¶36

¶37

BAIL APPL. NO. 6790 OF 2021

¶38

complainant. But it is true that the other accused were not having weapons with them, though they have acted with the first petitioner to accomplish the common object.

¶39

Considering the nature of accusation levelled

¶40

against these petitioner as well the facts and circumstances involved in this case, I find that the first accused, who is having very bad criminal antecedents and as he is the person who had inflicted injury of the defacto complainant, is not entitled for pre-arrest bail as requested by the learned

¶41

counsel for the petitioners. But the defacto complainant has not raised any specific allegation

¶42

against others for causing injuries to him. Therefore, I think that this application can be disposed of (petitioners 2 and 3) directing them to

¶43

surrender before the investigating officer on 28.09.2021 between 11 a.m and 12 p.m. Upon their

¶44

surrender, after recording their arrest and

¶45

interrogation, they shall be released on bail on the same day subject to the following conditions :-

¶46

BAIL APPL. NO. 6790 OF 2021

¶47

¶48

(i) The petitioners shall be released on bail on executing a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/(Rupees fifty thousand only) each with two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the

¶49

satisfaction of the investigating officer investigating officer.

¶50

(ii) They shall appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation as and when required by him, in writing.

¶51

(iii)They shall co-operate with the

¶52

investigation and trial of the case.

¶53

(iv) They shall not directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶54

(v) They shall not commit any offence while on bail.

¶55

In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the learned Magistrate/Judge is

¶56

empowered to cancel the bail in accordance with the law.

¶57

BAIL APPL. NO. 6790 OF 2021

¶58

¶59

The application with respect to the first

¶60

accused shall stand dismissed.

¶61

Sd/-

¶62

SHIRCY V. JUDGE

¶63

SMA

Pranav v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pranav 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

Athul Vs State of Kerala

Abhijith @ Abhi Vs State of Kerala

Unnikrishnan Vs State of Kerala

Ambili Vs State of Kerala

Ibrahim, Vs the State of Kerala

George Idicula Vs State of Kerala and Another