Allowed

Stibin v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC2 Dec 2021Bail Appl./7314/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Kerala granted bail to accused No. 3 and 5 in a case involving criminal trespass and assault. Court directed surrender before investigation and released them on bail with conditions including bond execution and restrictions on tampering with evidence.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail with Rs. 1 lakh bond; surrender required before 10.12.2021; conditions to cooperate and not tamper with evidence or commit further offences.

Stibin 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

THURSDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER 2021 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA, 1943

¶5

BAIL APPL. NO. 7314 OF 2021

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMC 1309/2021 OF DISTRICT COURT &
SESSIONS COURT,THRISSUR

¶7

CRIME NO.1128 OF 2021 OF WADAKKANCHERY POLICE STATION, THRISSUR

¶8

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.3 & 5 :-

¶9

1STIBIN
AGED 22 YEARS
S/O., CHACKOCHAN, VELLARAMPARAKKALHOUSE, P.O,
POOMALA, KILLANNUR VILLAGE, POOMALA DESOM,
MULANKUNNATHKAVU, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680581.

¶10

2SOORAJ SANTHOSH
AGED 22 YEARS
S/O. SANTHOSH, OMPULLIYIL HOUSE, POOMALA,
KILLANNUR VILLAGE, POOMALA DESOM,
MULANKUNNATHKAVU, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680581.

¶11

BY ADVS.
K.V.SREE VINAYAKAN
K.M.MUHAMMED HUSSAIN

¶12

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT :-

¶13

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

¶14

2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER, WADAKKANCHERY POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680582.

¶15

BY SMT.SREEJA.V- SR.PP

¶16

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
02.12.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

BAIL APPL. NO. 7314 OF 2021

¶18

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Application for pre-arrest bail.

¶21

The petitioners who are arraigned as accused Nos.3 and 5 in Crime No.1128 of 2021 of Wadakkanchery Police Station, Thrissur District registered for the offences punishable under Sections 452, 341, 323, 324, 427 and 506(ii) r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, have moved this application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶22

The prosecution allegation is that the accused Nos. 1 to 4 used to ride their motor cycle in excessive speed. This was questioned by the defacto complainant. Infuriated by the same, these petitioners along with the other accused on 21.08.2021 trespassed into his residential house with deadly weapons such as iron rod, sword stick etc with the intention to attack and to cause injuries to him. The first accused had beaten the defacto complainant with an iron rod along with other accused. The

¶23

BAIL APPL. NO. 7314 OF 2021

¶24

¶25

second accused had beaten him with a sword stick and threatened them with dire consequences. All the other accused have also inflicted injuries on the defacto complainant as well his two sons. They have created a horrendous situation in the house. Thereby, they have committed the aforesaid offences.

¶26

The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the son of the defacto complainant was having enmity towards these petitioners. So in order to wreck vengeance upon them, he has falsely implicated them in this case. In fact, they are totally innocent of the allegations levelled against them.

¶27

But highlighting the injuries noted in the wound certificate of the defacto complainant as well his son, who sustained injuries, the learned Public Prosecutor has opposed this bail application.

¶28

The place of occurrence is the residential house of the defacto complainant and the time of the alleged incident was at 07.30 pm. As per the records, as such available before me, the

¶29

BAIL APPL. NO. 7314 OF 2021

¶30

¶31

defacto complainant as well his one son had sustained injuries in the attack by these petitioners.

¶32

7 It is true that they have not sustained any serious

¶33

injuries. But as mentioned earlier, the place of occurrence is their residential house. These petitioners have committed house trespass and committed this illegal act by creating a horrendous situation. So no doubt, the accusation levelled against them are grave and serious in nature. The fact that the defacto complainant and the injured have not sustained very serious or deep injuries in the attack by these petitioners do not indicate that

¶34

they were falsely implicated in the case as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶35

Now only the sixth accused has been arrested and the weapon used by him alone has been recovered by the investigating agency. As per the submission of the learned Public Prosecutor, the third accused is not having any criminal antecedents but the fifth accused is involved in another crime of

¶36

BAIL APPL. NO. 7314 OF 2021

¶37

¶38

similar nature. Considering the entire facts involved in this case, I find that these petitioners are not entitled for pre-arrest bail.

¶39

However, considering the age and the other facts involved in this case, I think that this application can be disposed of directing them to surrender before the investigating officer on

¶40

10.12.2021 between 10 am and 12 noon . Upon their surrender, after recording their arrest, recovery, if any, has to be effected.

¶41

Thereafter, they can be released on bail subject to the following conditions :-

¶42

(i) The petitioners shall be released on bail on executing a bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) each with two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the investigating officer.

¶43

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

¶44

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

¶45

(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.

¶46

BAIL APPL. NO. 7314 OF 2021

¶47

¶48

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

¶49

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

¶50

learned Magistrate is empowered to cancel the bail in accordance

with the law.

Sd/-

SMA

SHIRCY V. JUDGE

Stibin v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Stibin 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

Pallipattu Raman Haridas Vs State of Kerala

Haneefa Vs State of Kerala

Derin Davis Vs State of Kerala

Riyasudeen@Manu, Vs State of Kerala

Sivadasan Vs State of Kerala

Arun.C., Vs State of Kerala