High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam, Justice Viiju Abraham, dismissed an anticipatory bail application (B.A. 2607 of 2022) for three accused persons charged under various IPC sections for assault, violence, and verbal abuse.
Application for anticipatory bail dismissed; petitioners denied bail.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM
TUESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 11TH SRAVANA, 1944
BAIL APPL. NO. 2607 OF 2022
PETITIONER/S:
BY ADVS.
C.P.UDAYABHANU NAVANEETH.N.NATH
RESPONDENT/S:
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. M.C.ASHI.
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.08.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A. No. 2607 of 2022 2
VIJU ABRAHAM, J.
-----------------------
B.A. No. 2607 of 2022
------------------------------
Dated this the 2nd day of August, 2022
ORDER
This is an application for anticipatory bail.
The petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 3 in crime
No.234 of 2022 of Hill Palace Police Station,
Ernakulam District, alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 326, 294(b) 427 r/w 34 of IPC.
wrongly restrained the de facto complainant and his brother and subjected them to severe physical tortures by beating, fisting, kicking and inflicting blows with a helmet. The de facto complainant is
said to have sustained fracture to his left thumb when a blow inflicted by the 1 st accused with a helmet struck on his left arm. The 1st accused is
also alleged to have hit the brother of the de facto
B.A. No. 2607 of 2022 3
complainant upon his head with a helmet. The 2nd
accused allegedly caught hold of the de facto complainant by his hair and fisted upon his head and thereafter pulled and broke the gold chain worn by the de facto complainant. The 3rd accused is alleged
to have kicked the de facto complainant’s brother upon his stomach and destroyed his mobile phone which he forcefully took from the pocket of de facto complainant’s brother. The accused are also said to have verbally abused the de facto complainant and his brother. It is stated that the provocation for doing the above criminal acts was the act of the de facto complainant and his brother who enquired about
the location of the residence of a relative in that area. Thus the accused are alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 326, 294(b) 427 r/w 34 of IPC.
for bail before the Sessions Court, Ernakulam, the same was rejected by Annexure 1 order.
B.A. No. 2607 of 2022 4
that they have been falsely implicated in the
aforesaid crime and the specific contention is that no serious overt acts are alleged against the third petitioner herein and further that he has no other criminal antecedents.
Considering the seriousness of the allegation, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Hence, the bail application is dismissed.
Sd/-VIJU ABRAHAM, JUDGE
amk
B.A. No. 2607 of 2022 5
APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 2607/2022
PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES :
Annexure 1 ORDER IN CRL. M.C. 573/2022 DATED 23.03.2022 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to accused persons charged with offences under Sections 341, 323, 324, 326, 294(b) and 427 read with Section 34 of IPC.
Whether the seriousness of the allegation and antecedents of accused warrant refusal of bail.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
MANIKUTTAN @ SHARAN. P.U
UMESH
SHARATH
STATE OF KERALA
SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE HILL PALACE POLICE STATION
VIJU ABRAHAM
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
