Allowed

Aash Rajeev v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC22 Dec 2021Bail Appl./9663/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Kerala allowed anticipatory bail application filed under Section 438 CrPC. Petitioner, accused in attempt to murder case, directed to surrender within two weeks. Bail granted upon execution of bond if arrested post-investigation along with specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail allowed; petitioner directed to surrender within two weeks; upon arrest post-investigation, release on bond of Rs.50,000 with sureties on specified conditions.

Aash Rajeev Vs the State of Kerala — Cheating and Forgery | 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 22^ND DAY OF DECEMBER 2021 / 1ST POUSHA, 1943 BAIL APPL. NO. 9663 OF 2021

¶5

CRIME NO.1267 OF 2021 OF ERNAKULAM SOUTH POLICE STATION,

ERNAKULAM

PETITIONER:

AASH RAJEEV

AGED 24 YEARS, S/O.M.RAJEEV, NEDUMTHALATHIL HOUSE, GHANDI LANE, PADAM STOP, KADAVANTHARA, ERNAKULAM - 682 020.

¶10

BY ADVS. K.RAKESH ROSHAN THUSHARA.V

¶11

RESPONDENT:

¶12

THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, COCHIN - 682 031 (IN CRIME NO.1267/2021 OF ERNAKULAM SOUTH POLICE STATION).

¶13

SRI M.C.ASHI-PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.12.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE

FOLLOWING:

B.A.No.9663 of 2021

P.G. AJITHKUMAR, J.

¶19

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

¶20

B.A.No. 9663 of 2021

¶21

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

¶22

Dated this the 22^nd day of December, 2021

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

This is an application for anticipatory bail filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

¶25

The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.267 of 2021 of Ernakulam South Police Station. The offences alleged are under Sections 294(b) and 307 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C.

¶26

The petitioner moved the Sessions Court,

¶27

Ernakulam for anticipatory bail by filing Crl.M.C.No.2401 of 2021 and the same was dismissed by Annexure-I order dated 18.11.2021. In that order the learned Sessions Judge observed thus,-

¶28

'6. The offence alleged against the accused is of very serious nature. It could be seen from the prosecution records that the defacto complainant escaped from death due to the assault of the first accused only by sheer luck. It is true that the present petitioner/4^th accused is not alleged to have inflicted any injury upon

¶29

¶30

B.A.No.9663 of 2021

¶31

the defacto complainant. But at the same time, the above aspect could no way be treated as an extenuating circumstance for the purpose of bail since it is apparent from the prosecution records that the accused no.1 to 4 had acted in concert in furtherance of their common intention to commit the murder of defacto complainant. Therefore, the collective liability and accountability of the petitioner/4^th accused along with the accused no.1 to 3 would render his involvement in the offence as serious as that of the involvement of the other accused. There is absolutely no reason to think that the defacto complainant might have come forward with false accusation against the petitioner/4^th accused with the intention of harassing him by having him arrested in this case. So also any protection granted to the petitioner/4^th accused against his arrest would adversely affect the investigation in this case. Therefore, I am of the view that the petitioner/4^th accused is not entitled for pre-arrest bail as prayed for in this petitioner.'

¶32

On the basis of the finding that the petitioner was also a person present at the time of incident establishing his constructive liability under the provisions of the I.P.C., the Sessions Judge denied pre-arrest bail.

¶33

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

¶34

¶35

B.A.No.9663 of 2021

¶36

The learned Public Prosecutor would submit that accused Nos.1 to 3 were already arrested and released on bail. The persons against whom the overtacts attributed were arrested and recovery effected. Considering the role of the petitioner, his identification and such other aspects may be required to be investigated into in the presence of the petitioner. In view of that matter, I am of the opinion that the petitioner need not be detained during the period of investigation.

¶37

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 other necessary formalities of investigation, 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:

¶38

(i) Once released on bail, he shall appear before the

¶39

¶40

B.A.No.9663 of 2021

¶41

Investigating Officer on all Wednesdays at 10.00 a.m. and 11.00 a.m. for a period of three months or till the final report is filed, whichever is earlier;

¶42

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

¶43

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

¶44

In case of breach of the bail conditions, the prosecution shall

¶45

be at liberty to apply for cancellation of the bail before the jurisdictional court.

¶46

Sd/-

¶47

P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE

¶48

dkr

Aash Rajeev v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aash Rajeev v. the 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

Rajeesh Vs State of Kerala

C.K.Muhammed Shareef Vs Divisional Forest Officer

Prakash T. Vs State of Kerala

Sudheesh (A-1) Vs State of Kerala

Aniyan @ Anilkumar, Vs State of Kerala

Muhammed Sudheer, Vs State of Kerala