Allowed

Manu v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC5 Feb 2021Bail Appl./884/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed an application for anticipatory bail filed by three accused persons charged with offences under various sections of the IPC including 143, 147, 148, 308, 506(2). The court held that criminal antecedents alone are not a ground to deny bail and granted bail subject to specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed subject to surrender within two weeks and execution of a bond for Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties, and adherence to specific reporting and conduct conditions.

Manu 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 ASHOK MENON

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 16TH MAGHA,1942

¶5

Bail Appl..No.884 OF 2021

¶6

CRIME NO.1944/2020 OF Parassala Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram

¶7

PETITIONER/S:

¶8

1 MANU AGED 32 YEARS KAYKAD PUTHUVAL PUTHEN VEEDU,UDHAYANKULANGARA,CHEKKAL VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695026.

¶9

2 SUDHEESH AGED 29 YEARS KINNAR NINNAVILA VEED,KEEZHEKOLLA, VETTAVILA P O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶10

3 RATHEESH AGED 35 YEARS PERINGALAMPADU PUTHEN VEEDU,KEEZHEKOLLA, VETTAVILA P O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695122.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.B.THARIF

¶12

RESPONDENT/S:

¶13

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM – 682031. R1 BY SMT.V.SREEJA -PP

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

BA 884/2021

O R D E R

Dated this the 5th day of February 2021

¶19

This is an application seeking anticipatory bail filed under Section 438 Cr.PC.

¶20

The applicants are accused 1 to 3 in Crime No. 1944/2020 of Parasala Police Station for having allegedly committed offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 294(b), 323, 324, 506(2) and 308 read with Section 149 IPC.

¶21

The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 25/10/2020 at about 9.30 pm, the applicants together with two others, were members of an unlawful assembly, the common object of which was to assault the de facto complainant against whom the applicants had previous enmity and in prosecution of the common object, they committed riot in front of the Church at Aanakunnu in Kollayil Village and thereafter hurled abuses at the de facto complainant and assaulted him both with hands and with weapons like stick. The first accused punched on the forehead of the de facto complainant and the second accused caused hurt to him by means of a stick and the third accused also intimidated him pointing a knife at him and thus committed the offence.

¶22

The applicants state that the allegations are not true and that they have been falsely implicated for the reason that the

¶23

BA 884/2021

¶24

¶25

de facto complainant was implicated as an accused on the basis of a crime which was registered on a complaint filed by the second applicant as Crime No.1226/2019 for having allegedly committed offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 452, 323 and 324 of IPC and under Sections 4 and 17 Kerala Money Lenders Act. It is because of that reason that the applicants have been falsely implicated in this case. It is also stated that no grievance or serious injury has been caused to the de facto complainant.

¶26

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicants and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶27

The learned Public Prosecutor points out that all the three applicants are persons having criminal antecedents. The first accused is involved in three other crimes, including offences under Sections 308 and 302 IPC. The second accused is involved in six other crimes for offences ranging from Sections 324 to 326 and 308 IPC. The third accused is also involved in two other crimes. The other accused who were involved in this crime are also having criminal antecedents. Under the circumstances, in case they are released on bail, there is every possibility that they may get involved in offences of similar nature and may also abscond. Therefore, the application for bail is vehemently opposed by the learned Prosecutor.

¶28

The fact that the applicants have criminal antecedents is a good reason for rejecting the application for anticipatory bail. That alone is not a criteria. The criteria is also whether the

¶29

BA 884/2021

¶30

¶31

applicants are involved in any grave offence. In the instant case, the allegation is for offences punishable under Section 308 IPC. But the de facto complainant has not sustained any serious injury. Although the third accused was holding a knife, no injury has been caused by that weapon. The only injury that was caused to the de facto complainant is by means of a stick, which was wielded by the second accused. The fact that the applicants have criminal antecedents could be taken care of by imposing stringent conditions. I find no reason for declining them to grant anticipatory bail.

¶32

As a result, the bail application is allowed. The applicants are directed to surrender before the investigating officer within two weeks. In the event of their being arrested, after interrogation, they shall be released on bail on execution of a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) each with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the investigating officer, and on the following further conditions:

¶33

(i) They shall appear before the investigating officer on every Saturday between 9 a.m. and 12 noon for a period of two months or till the filing of the final report, whichever is earlier. (ii) They shall not tamper with evidence or intimidate or influence the witnesses. (iii) They shall not get involved in any similar offence during the currency of the bail.

¶34

In case of breach of any of the above bail conditions, the

¶35

BA 884/2021

¶36

¶37

prosecution is at liberty to approach the jurisdictional court for cancellation of the bail.

Sd/-

ASHOK MENON

JUDGE

Manu v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manu 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

Saheer Alias Sha Paraichakam Vs State of Kerala

Shahid Vs State of Kerala

Shiju.U Vs State of Kerala

Ramshad Am Vs State of Kerala

Mohammed K.Noufal Vs State of Kerala

Jaimon James Vs State of Kerala