Allowed

Abhilash a. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC10 Dec 2021Bail Appl./8963/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed an application for anticipatory bail filed by a second accused in a case involving alleged assault and possession of a weapon. The Court granted bail on strict conditions, including surrender for interrogation and executing a bond with sureties.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted on conditions: surrender within two weeks, bond execution, regular court appearances, travel restrictions, and non-interference with witnesses.

Abhilash a. Vs State of Kerala — Quashing and FIR | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 10^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021/ 19TH AGRAHAYANA, 1943

¶5

BAIL APPL. NO. 8963 OF 2021

¶6

CRIME NO.1001 OF 2021 OF ANCHAL POLICE STATION, KOLLAM PETITIONER:

¶7

ABHILASH A.

¶8

AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.ARAVINDAKSHAN, ABHILASH BHAVAN, EDAMULAKKAL.P.O, PALAMUKKU, ANCHAL, KOLLAM-691306.

¶9

BY ADV B.MOHANLAL

¶10

RESPONDENT/S:

¶11

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

¶12

2. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, ANCHAL POLICE STATION, ANCHAL.P.O, KOLLAM-691306.

¶13

ADV. SEENA C. (PP)

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.12.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

¶16

B.A.No.8963 of 2021

¶17

P.G. AJITHKUMAR, J.

¶18

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

¶19

B.A.No. 8963 of 2021

¶20

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

¶21

Dated this the 10^th day of December, 2021

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

This is an application for anticipatory bail filed under

¶24

Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

¶25

The petitioner is the 2^nd accused in crime No.1001 of 2021 of Anchal Police Station. The offences initially alleged were under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324 and 308 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. and under Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. After initial investigation, the offences under Sections 143, 147, 148 and 149 of I.P.C. and under Section 27 of the Arms Act were deleted.

¶26

The prosecution case is that at about 7.00 p.m. on 20.08.2021, the accused persons, in furtherance of their common knowledge that by their acts will cause the death of the de facto complainant, attacked him while he was riding in

¶27

his motorcycle and reached near Gurumandiram at

¶28

Thevarthottam. The 1^st accused using a chopper inflicted cut

¶29

¶30

B.A.No.8963 of 2021

¶31

injury on the head and other accused slapped and fisted the defacto complainant. Consequently, serious injuries were caused all over his body.

¶32

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶33

The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the de facto complainant demanded money from the petitioner and as the said demand was declined, he was falsely implicated in the case. The learned counsel further would contend that the 1^st accused, against whom the overt act of causing injury using a weapon was alleged, has already and recovery effected. It is his contention that considering the nature of the offences and the complicity alleged against him, his custodial interrogation is absolutely unnecessary.

¶34

The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, would contend that although the main perpetrator was the 1^st accused, the petitioner was also actively involved in the commission of the offence and as such, his custodial interrogation is absolutely necessary. Recovery of the weapon

¶35

¶36

B.A.No.8963 of 2021

¶37

alone is not enough to complete the investigation, and therefore, the application is liable only to be dismissed.

¶38

It is stated in the report that the petitioner is also an accused in another crime involving offences punishable under Sections 323 and 324 of the I.P.C. That crime is now at trial. The petitioner stated that fact in his application for bail. It is pointed out by the learned counsel that after the alleged incident having been taken place, there has been constant threat to the entire family of the petitioner, regarding which a complaint has been filed before the Director General of Police, copy of which is at Annexure A3 and another complaint has also been submitted to the Superintendent of Police, copy of which is at Annexure A4.

¶39

A chopper was used to attack the de facto complainant. The weapon was already recovered at the instance of the 1^st accused. The parties are admittedly known to each other. Considering the whole circumstances and the materials on record, I am of the view that the petitioner can be granted anticipatory bail on strict conditions.

¶40

¶41

B.A.No.8963 of 2021

¶42

In such circumstances, this bail application is allowed and the petitioner is directed to surrender before the investigating officer within two weeks. After interrogation and in the event of his being arrested, he shall be released on bail on the execution of a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only), with two solvent sureties for the like amount each, to the satisfaction of the investigating officer, and on the following conditions:

¶43

(i) He shall appear before the Investigating Officer on every Tuesday and Friday for a period of three months or till the final report is filed, whichever is earlier;

¶44

(ii) He shall not leave the limits of the jurisdictional court without prior permission of the Magistrate until further orders;

¶45

(iii) He shall not go abroad without the permission of the jurisdictional Court and shall surrender his passport before the investigating officer, and in case he does not have a passport, he shall file an affidavit to that effect;

¶46

(iv) He shall not influence or intimidate witnesses or tamper

B.A.No.8963 of 2021

with evidence; and

(v) During the bail period, he shall not get involved in any offence.

¶51

In case of breach of the bail conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to apply for cancellation of the bail before the

¶52

jurisdictional court.

¶53

Sd/-

¶54

P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE

¶55

dkr

Abhilash a. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abhilash a. 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

Santhosh Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Joseph Thomas @ Cijo Vs State of Kerala

Vinu .T Vs State of Kerala

Pushparaj.R Vs State of Kerala

Jaffer Vs the State of Kerala

Mujeeb Puthenparambil, Vs State of Kerala