Allowed

Harikumar K.G, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC8 Dec 2021Bail Appl./7866/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, who was the third accused in an assault case. The court held that detention was not required for investigation as the weapon was taken from the victim's vehicle and the dispute arose from a neighborhood feud. Bail was granted subject to strict conditions.

What did the court decide?

The petition for anticipatory bail was allowed, directing the petitioner to appear before the Investigating Officer within two weeks and execute a bail bond. Bail conditions include alternating daily

Harikumar K.G, Vs State of Kerala — Anticipatory Bail | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 8^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021/17TH AGRAHAYANA,

¶5

1943

¶6

BAIL APPL. NO. 7866 OF 2021

¶7

CRIME NO.1358 OF 2021 OF PATHANAMTHITTA POLICE STATION PETITIONER/3RD ACCUSED:

¶8

HARIKUMAR K.G, AGED 38 YEARS S/O. GOPALAN NAIR, KALEECKAL, KALLARAKKADAVU, PATHANAMTHITTA P.O, PIN-689 645

¶9

BY ADVS.

¶10

P.HARIDAS BIJU HARIHARAN P.C.SHIJIN RISHIKESH HARIDAS

¶11

RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT:

¶12

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

¶13

2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER (SHO), PATHANAMTHITTA POLICE STATION, PIN-689 645

¶14

SMT.C.SEENA - PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.12.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

¶17

B.A.No.7866 of 2021

¶18

P.G. AJITHKUMAR, J.

¶19

-----------------------------------------------------------

¶20

B.A.No. 7866 of 2021

¶21

----------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 8^th day of December, 2021

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

This is an application for Anticipatory Bail filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973. The petitioner is the 3^rd accused in Crime No.1358 of 2021 of Pathanamthitta Police Station. The offences alleged against the accused are 341, 323, 324, 326 and 427 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

¶24

The crime was registered with respect to an incident occurred at about 7.30 a.m on 08.09.2021. The defacto complainant was driving his autorikshaw and reached Kallarakkadavu, a place near his house. The first accused intercepted the vehicle by placing stones on the road. When the defacto complainant came out of the autorikshaw after stopping it, the 1^st accused along with accused Nos.2 and 3 slapped and kicked him. The 3^rd accused, who is the petitioner took out an iron liver from the autorikshaw of the defacto complainant and beat the defacto complainant causing him injuries. He was kicked down by

¶25

¶26

B.A.No.7866 of 2021

¶27

the petitioner and as a result of which, there occurred dislocation of his right shoulder.

¶28

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the learned Public Prosecutor. Learned Public Prosecutor placed on record a report of the Sub Inspector of Police, Pathanamthitta.

¶29

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that even if entire prosecution allegations are accepted, an offence under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code would not be attracted inasmuch as the dislocation of the right shoulder of the defacto complainant was said to have been caused as a result of kicking him down and not as a result of beating with any dangerous weapon.

¶30

Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor would contend that the petitioner along with other two accused attacked the defacto complainant using an iron rod and in that course the defacto complainant sustained not only the dislocation of the right shoulder but also a fracture of his nasal bone.

¶31

The petitioner along with accused Nos.1 and 2 filed applications seeking anticipatory bail before the

¶32

¶33

B.A.No.7866 of 2021

¶34

Sessions Court Pathanamthitta as Crl.M.P.No.1612 of 2021. The learned Sessions Judge, as per order dated 24.09.2021 granted anticipatory bail to accused nos 2 and 4. The learned Sessions Judge holding that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required for the furtherance of the investigation, the application as regards the petitioner was dismissed.

¶35

On a perusal of the report submitted by the investigating officer, it is not able to garner an impression that the weapon allegedly used to attack the defacto complainant was taken away by the petitioner or by any other accused. Admittedly, the weapon was an iron liver took out from the autorickshaw of the defacto complainant. There cannot be any doubt that if an iron liver is used as a weapon of offence, it is dangerous as defined in Section 324 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code. The defacto complainant and the accused are persons residing in the neighbourhood. There exists civil disputes between them. The incident in question is an outcome of that feud. I am of the view that the detention of the petitioner during investigation is not very much required for a proper investigation. In my view, in order for the parties to sort out the dispute between them,

¶36

¶37

B.A.No.7866 of 2021

¶38

and to create an amiable relationship, there shall be an opportunity. Avoiding detention of the petitioner at this stage, in the above circumstances, is in the interest of justice.

¶39

Hence, I hold that the petitioner can be granted anticipatory bail subject to strict conditions. Accordingly, this bail application is allowed and the petitioner is directed to appear before the Investigating Officer within two weeks and in the event of his being arrested, he shall be released on bail on execution of a bond for Rs.50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand only) by him along with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer, and on the following conditions:

¶40

(i) He shall appear before the Investigating Officer on every alternate day between 10.00 a.m. and 11.00 a.m from the date of his release on bail for a period of three months or till filing of the final report, whichever

¶41

is earlier;

¶42

(ii) He shall not influence or intimidate witnesses or tamper with evidence; and

¶43

(iii) During the bail period, he shall not get involved in any

B.A.No.7866 of 2021

offence.

In case of breach of the bail conditions, the prosecution

¶48

shall be at liberty to apply for cancellation of the bail before

¶49

the jurisdictional court.

¶50

Sd/P.G. AJITHKUMAR JUDGE

¶51

Harikumar K.G, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harikumar K.G, 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

Renjith K. Vs State of Kerala

Sajma Raghu Vs State of Kerala

Mohammed Sohib Vs State of Kerala

Muhammed Palliyil Vs State of Kerala

Noushad Vs State of Kerala

Harshakumar Vs State of Kerala