Partly allowed

Sunil Kumar v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC13 Dec 2021Bail Appl./8288/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala granted pre-arrest bail to the petitioners accused in a physical altercation. The court directed surrender, custodial interrogation, and imposed conditions including a bond and appearance for further investigation, noting the incident involved neighbors with stemmed disputes.

What did the court decide?

Directed surrender to Investigating Officer on 21.12.2021; granted bail subject to bond of Rs. 50,000 each with sureties and other conditions.

Sunil Kumar Vs State of Kerala — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V.

¶4

MONDAY, THE 13^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021 / 22ND AGRAHAYANA, 1943

¶5

BAIL APPL. NO. 8288 OF 2021

¶6

CRMC 1805/2021 OF I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & I ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOLLAM

¶7

CRIME NO. 594 OF 2021 OF KOTTIYAM POLICE STATION

¶8

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1-3:

¶9

1 SUNIL KUMAR, AGED 52 YEARS S/O.VASUDEVAN, ARUN BHAVAN, KOTTIYAM P.O., KOLLAM 691 571 2 SUJITH, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.NADARAJAN, SREEJA NIVAS, THAZHUTHALA KOTTIYAM, KOLLAM 691 571 3 NITHIN S. KUMAR @ KANNAN, AGED 23 YEARS S/O.SUNIL KUMAR, SREEJA NIVAS, THAZHUTHALA KOTTIYAM, KOLLAM 691 571

¶10

BY ADVS. M.KIRANLAL MANU RAMACHANDRAN T.S.SARATH R.RAJESH (VARKALA) SAMEER M NAIR GEETHU KRISHNAN V.M.VISHNU MOHAN HARSHA SUSAN SAM

¶11

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT/STATE:

¶12

STATE OF KERALA REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN 682 031

OTHER PRESENT:

SMT SREEJA V -PP

B.A.8288/2021

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

¶18

13.12.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

B.A.8288/2021

ORDER

Dated this the 13^th day of December, 2021

¶23

Application for pre-arrest bail.

¶24

Apprehending arrest in connection with Crime No. 594 of

¶25

2021 of Kottiyam Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 341, 323, 324, 326 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, the petitioners have moved this application for pre-arrest bail.

¶26

The prosecution allegation is that the defacto complainant and the petitioners are neighbours. On 28.09.2021 they have attacked the defacto complainant by beating with a stick and causing injuries including fracture to his hand and thereby committed the aforesaid offences.

¶27

The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that

¶28

they have been falsely implicated in the case at the instance of

¶29

the defacto complainant who is entertaining enmity towards

¶30

B.A.8288/2021

¶31

¶32

them. In fact the alleged incident as per the prosecution case was on 26.09.2021. But the wound certificate is dated 28.09.2021 and the FIR was lodged only on 03.10.2021 and that itself would show that these petitioners are falsely implicated, is the case by the defacto complainant.

¶33

But the learned Public Prosecutor on instruction submits that, on investigation it was revealed that the defacto complainant had availed treatment from the hospital immediately after the incident on 28.09.2021. The actual incident was on 28.09.2021. But he has mistakenly stated the date as 26.09.2021 before the police while recording his FIS. Moreover, there is also an explanation for the delay in lodging the complaint on 03.10.2021 in the statement itself that due to his pain and other inconveniences, he could lodge the complaint only subsequently. So, the delay is explained by him, is the stand taken by the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶34

Heard both sides.

¶35

B.A.8288/2021

¶36

¶37

A perusal of the records would show that the defacto

¶38

complainant was treated before Holy Cross Hospital, Kottiyam on 28.09.2021. He was examined by the doctor at about 11.45 p.m. But the FIR was lodged only on 03.10.2021 though he committed mistake regarding the date of the alleged incident. But it is to be noted that the wound certificate would reveal that he has sustained fracture to his hand in the attack by a known person. Of course, before the doctor, he has not mentioned the name of the petitioners, but it is stated as assault by a known person. The petitioners as well as the defacto complainant are neighbours. They are having some dispute regarding certain issues. But, the records would further reveal that only the 1^st accused was having a weapon with him to attack the defacto complainant and the weapon has been recovered at the time of preparing the scene mahazar by the investigating officer.

¶39

Considering the fact that the investigation of the case is well in progress as well the fact that recovery has been effected, I think that custodial interrogation of these petitioners may not

¶40

B.A.8288/2021

¶41

¶42

be required for the investigating agency to proceed with the investigation of the case. Still, as the parties are neighbours and other issues are pending between them, to avoid further problems, I think that they can be directed to surrender before the investigating officer.

¶43

The petitioners shall surrender before the Investigating Officer on 21.12.2021 between 10 a.m. and 12 noon. Upon their surrender, after interrogation and recording their arrest, they shall be released on bail subject to the following conditions:

¶44

(i) They shall execute 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 satisfaction of the Investigating Officer.

¶45

(ii) They shall appear for interrogation before the Investigating Officer as and when required by him in writing. They shall co-operate with the investigation of the case.

¶46

B.A.8288/2021

¶47

¶48

(iii) They shall not directly or indirectly, make any inducement,

¶49

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.

¶50

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

¶51

In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the learned Magistrate is empowered to cancel the bail in accordance with the law.

Sd/-

SHIRCY V.

JUDGE

Sunil Kumar v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Kumar 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

Anupa Mery Vs State of Kerala

Ansif A.H. Vs the State of Kerala

Jishnu v R Vs State of Kerala

Sumesh K., Vs State of Kerala

Pratheesh.P.P., Vs State of Kerala

Reethu Ben Vs State of Kerala