The Kerala High Court allowed an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC for accused persons charged with assault and theft allegedly occurring during a family dispute with the complainant.
Petition allowed; direction issued to release petitioners on bail upon arrest upon execution of bond of Rs.1,00,000/- with sureties.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR
MONDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021 / 15TH AGRAHAYANA, 1943
BAIL APPL. NO.7044 OF 2021
CRIME NO.893 OF 2021 OF ERAVIPURAM POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT.
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 AND 2:
1 AFZAL, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O. SIDDIQ, FAISAL NIVAS, VENGA P.O., SATHAMKOTTA, KOLLAM DISTRICT-690 521.
2 SHEBIN, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O. NIZAMUDDIN, SHEBIN MANZIL, VENGA P.O., SATHAMKOTTA, KOLLAM DISTRICT-690 521.
BY ADV M.T.SURESHKUMAR
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.
SMT SEENA C., PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.12.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
BAIL APPL. NO.7044 OF 2021
-2-
ORDER
This is an application for bail filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
BAIL APPL. NO.7044 OF 2021
-3-
defacto complainant who attacked and assaulted the petitioners and only on the intervention of the local people they were saved. The learned counsel would also submit that, although the defacto complainant was the aggressor and a complaint was submitted by the 1st petitioner, no crime was registered, on account of the influence of the defacto complainant.
BAIL APPL. NO.7044 OF 2021
-4-
as her relatives. The defacto complainant is the husband of the sister of the 1st petitioner’s wife. Therefore, it is obvious that as sequel to the family dispute, the incident in question had occurred. Of course, in view of the allegations that the mobile phone and other articles were taken away from the car, the investigating agency has to make an endeavour to recover the same and to take the investigation into its logical conclusion.
i. Sureties of each of the petitioners shall be
BAIL APPL. NO.7044 OF 2021
-5-
their close relatives.
ii. The petitioners shall co-operate with the investigation.
iii. In the event of arrest, they need to be released only after complying with the necessary formalities of investigation as permitted under Sections 57 and 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
iv. They shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called for;
v. They shall not influence or intimidate witnesses or tamper with evidence; and
vi. During the bail period, they shall not get involved in any offence.
In case of breach of the bail conditions, the prosecution shall
be at liberty to apply for cancellation of the bail before the jurisdictional court.
Sd/-
P.G. AJITHKUMAR
JUDGE
bpr
2 issues framed by the court
Whether to grant anticipatory bail to accused persons charged with assault, theft, and offences under Section 498A IPC arising from a family dispute.
Whether the background of family disputes justifies the grant of pre-arrest bail despite serious injuries to the complainant.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
AFZAL
SHEBIN
STATE OF KERALA
P.G. AJITHKUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
