Allowed

Sreejith. K.K v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC23 Mar 2021Crl.MC/68/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside an anticipatory bail order granted by the Sessions Court due to gross negligence and glaring defects. The Court noted the Sessions Judge overlooked a wound certificate indicating a stab injury to grant bail, failing to order custodial interrogation for seizure of a sharp-edged weapon.

What did the court decide?

The order granting anticipatory bail to the accused is set aside and the bail application is dismissed.

Sreejith. K.K Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 2ND CHAITHRA, 1943

¶5

Crl.MC.No.68 OF 2021(G)

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRL.MC 1235/2020 OF SESSIONS COURT, KOZHIKODE

¶7

CRIME NO.668/2020 OF ATHOLY POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE

¶8

PETITIONER/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶9

SREEJITH. K.K, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O. SREEDHARAN NAIR, KELOTH KUNIYIL HOUSE, ULLIERY PO, ATHOLY, KOZHIKODE RURAL, KERALA-673 315.

¶10

BY ADVS. SMT.K.K.PREETHA SRI.R.K.PRASANTH

¶11

RESPONDENTS/STATE/ACCUSED:

¶12

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-31.

¶13

2 JAYAKRISHNAN K., AGED 28 YEARS, S/O. JINACHANDRAN, KELOTH HOUSE, PO ULLIYERI, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673315.

¶14

R2 BY ADV. SRI.SUNNY MATHEW

¶15

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.RAMESH CHAND

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

Crl.MC.No.68 OF 2021(G) 2

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Paragraph 7 of the order granting anticipatory

¶20

bail to the accused by the Sessions Court is extracted below for reference:

¶21

“7. A copy of the wound certificate is produced by the Investigating officer showing that the defacto complainant has suffered only abrasions and bruises on nape of neck, possibly due to nail injury while trying for throttling. No injury is seen suffered as stated by the prosecution in the medical report. Except the offence under Section 308 IPC, all other offences are bailable. The custodial interrogation of the accused is required for the seizure of the sharp edged weapon. But there is no injury showing that the knife was involved in the incident. The wound is only a nail abrasion. So the custodial interrogation of the accused is not required. Hence the petition is allowable.”

¶22

Annexure A4 wound certificate says

¶23

otherwise and discloses an incised wound in left

¶24

renal ankle of size 5 x 6x 6 cm. It is not clear

¶25

on what basis the Sessions Judge made such observations that the defacto complainant suffered

¶26

Crl.MC.No.68 OF 2021(G) 3

¶27

only abrasions and bruises possibly due to nail injury. It is so unfortunate that while dealing with a bail application, especially an application for anticipatory bail, such a clandestine approach was adopted by the Sessions Judge. She has also committed another grave mistake overlooking the wound certificate and observed that no custodial interrogation is necessary for the seizure of any sharp edged weapon and that there is no injury to show user of any knife. The opinion as to cause of injury noted in the wound certificate is “alleged h/o stab injury”. The history and alleged cause of injury noted in the wound certificate is “stab injury following argument with neighbour”. Inspite of these entries in the wound certificate, the learned Sessions Judge observed that the wound is only a nail abrasion and that there is no injury showing involvement of a knife and hence custodial interrogation of the

¶28

accused is not required. As against the wound

¶29

certificate, a false statement is seen

¶30

incorporated by the Sessions Judge so as to grant

¶31

Crl.MC.No.68 OF 2021(G) 4

¶32

anticipatory bail to the petitioner. This would prima facie show what is behind it. There is gross negligence and glaring defects in the order passed by the Sessions Judge. For securing the ends of justice, the order granting anticipatory bail to the accused is hereby set aside and the bail application will stand dismissed.

¶33

Crl.M.C. is allowed accordingly.

¶34

The Registry shall forward a copy of this order to the Judge in charge of the District.

Sd/-

P.SOMARAJAN

JUDGE

msp

Crl.MC.No.68 OF 2021(G) 5

¶40

APPENDIX

¶41

PETITIONER'S/S ANNEXURES:

¶42

ANNEXURE A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19.11.2020 IN CRL.M.C.NO.1235/2020 ON THE FILES OF THE SESSIONS COURT, KOZHIKODE. ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.668/2020 OF ATHOLI POLICE STATION DATED 14.11.2020. ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE CT SCAN REPORT ISSUED BY THE RADIOLOGY DEPARTMENT DATED 13.11.2020. ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF THE WOUND CERTIFICATE DATED 13.11.2020 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER.

¶43

RESPONDENTS ANNEXURES:NIL

¶44

//TRUE COPY//

¶45

P.A. TO JUDGE

Sreejith. K.K v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sreejith. K.K 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.Chandran Vs State of Kerala

P. Abdulla Koya Vs the State of Kerala

K.P.Lathakumari Vs State of Kerala

Jayakrishnan T. Vs Deepu Sudhakaran

Moideen Koya Vs State of Kerala

Fasil Muhammed Vs State of Kerala