Allowed

Arjun J Unnithan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC3 Dec 2021Bail Appl./6952/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala, in Bail Application No. 6952 of 2021, entertained a petition by Arjun J Unnithan seeking pre-arrest bail in a case involving offences under Sections 452, 323, 324, 326, 308 IPC. The court granted bail citing lack of weapons against petitioner and pending investigation.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted pre-arrest bail on execution of bond for Rs. 50,000 with two solvent sureties for similar sum.

Arjun J Unnithan 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

FRIDAY, THE 3^RD DAY OF DECEMBER 2021 / 12TH AGRAHAYANA, 1943

¶5

BAIL APPL. NO. 6952 OF 2021

¶6

CRIME NO.794 OF 2021 OF KAYAMKULAM POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT

¶7

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMP 1660/2021 OF SESSIONS COURT,

¶8

ALAPPUZHA

¶9

PETITIONER/SOLE ACCUSED:

¶10

ARJUN J UNNITHAN AGED 21 YEARS S/O. JAYRAMAN UNNITHAN RESIDING @ THAYYIL PADEETTATHIL, KAPPIL EAST MURI, KRISHNAPURAM VILLAGE, KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA-690 533

¶11

BY ADVS. R.KISHORE (KALLUMTHAZHAM) BIPIN C BABU

¶12

RESPONDENTS/STATE:

¶13

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR , HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031

¶14

2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KAYAMKULAM POLICE STATION, KAYAMKULAM-690 502

¶15

SREEJA.V- SR.PP

¶16

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.12.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

BAIL APPL. NO. 6952 OF 2021

¶18

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Apprehending arrest in connection with Crime No.794/2021 of Kayamkulam Police Station, Alappuzha District registered for the offences punishable under Sections 452, 323, 324, 326, 308, 427 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioner/2^nd accused has moved this application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶21

The prosecution allegation is that, the accused due to their enmity towards the defacto complainant on 06.08.2021 at about 3.00 p.m, trespassed into the residential house of the defacto complainant and attacked him and his father. The 1^st accused had hacked him with a chopper causing grievous injuries. The other accused were also with the 1^st accused to inflict injuries on the defacto complainant. They have also caused damages to the house hold articles and caused a loss to the tune of Rs.5,000/- apart from the injuries caused to the defacto complainant as well as his father and thereby committed the aforesaid offences.

¶22

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that this petitioner is a student pursuing his studies in Bangalore. He has absolutely no involvement in the alleged incident. He was not

¶23

BAIL APPL. NO. 6952 OF 2021

¶24

¶25

even present at the place of occurrence as alleged by the prosecution. Still he apprehends arrest.

¶26

The learned Public Prosecutor would submit that the 1^st accused was arrested and released on bail and the weapon used by him has also been recovered and now the investigation of the case is well in progress.

¶27

A perusal of the FI statement of the injured would show that the accused have trespassed into the residential house of the defacto complainant at about 3.00 p.m on 06.08.2021. The 1^st accused was having a chopper with him and with that weapon he inflicted injuries on the defacto complainant as well as his father. But it is pertinent to note that the defacto complainant has no case that this petitioner as well the other accused were having any weapon with them at the time of the alleged incident. Though there is an allegation that they have damaged the house hold articles, there is no specific allegation against this petitioner. So the complicity of the petitioner in the alleged incident is not revealed from the FI statement of the injured. The petitioner is a young man aged only 21 years and is pursuing his studies as stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner. He is also having no criminal antecedents. Taking into consideration of all these facts, I am

¶28

BAIL APPL. NO. 6952 OF 2021

¶29

¶30

inclined to grant pre-arrest bail subject to the following conditions:

¶31

(i) The petitioner shall be released on bail on executing a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the investigating officer in the event of his arrest.

¶32

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

¶33

(iii) He shall co-operate with the investigation and trial of the case.

¶34

(iv) He 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.

¶35

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

¶36

In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the learned

¶37

Magistrate/Judge is empowered to cancel the bail in accordance

with the law.

Sd/-

SHIRCY V. JUDGE

mpm

Arjun J Unnithan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arjun J Unnithan 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

Sivadasan Vs State of Kerala

Stibin Vs State of Kerala

Arun.C., Vs State of Kerala

Dhaneesh K. Vs State of Kerala

Raghavan Vs State of Kerala

Haseer Vs State of Kerala