Allowed

Aromal.S v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC3 Nov 2022Bail Appl./3631/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment allows an anticipatory bail application filed by an accused charged with offences under various sections of IPC in connection with an alleged assault. The court imposes conditions including appearance for interrogation and surrender for potential discovery under Section 27, citing precedent.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail with bond of Rs.50,000/- and two sureties, subject to conditions for interrogation and surrender for discovery.

Aromal.S Vs State of Kerala — Anticipatory Bail | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

Bail Appln. No. 3631 of 2022 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. BABU

¶5

THURSDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 12TH

¶6

KARTHIKA, 1944

¶7

BAIL APPL. NO. 3631 OF 2022

¶8

Crime No. 227/2022 of Ayiroor Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram District.

¶9

PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2:

¶10

AROMAL.S
AGED 18 YEARS
S/O SURESH, AGED 18 YEARS, RESIDING AT
KOPRAKADA VEEDU, MUTTAPPALAM P.O.,
CHAVADIMUKKU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. , PIN -
695145
BY ADVS.
NIRMAL V NAIR
ANEES.T

¶11

RESPONDENT/STATE:

¶12

STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT
OF KERALA, PIN - 682031

¶13

OTHER PRESENT:

¶14

By Adv.
M.C.ASHI, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 03.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME
DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

Bail Appln. No. 3631 of 2022 2

¶17

K. BABU , J.

¶18

=========================== Bail Appln. No. 3631 of 2022 ============================ Dated this the 3^rd day of November, 2022

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

This is an application filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶21

The petitioner is accused No.2 in Crime No. 227/2022 of Ayiroor Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram District. The offences alleged against the petitioner are punishable under Sections 294(b), 323, 324, 326, 341 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶22

The prosecution allegation is as follows:

¶23

The defacto complainant had raised complaints against

¶24

accused No.1 before the Police and the school authorities regarding the illegal sale and distribution of drugs near the school premises. On 31.03.2022, at about 10.30 P.M., while the defacto complainant was returning after the conclusion of the Kavadi Ghoshayatra at Ayiroor, Kattumpuram Devi Ksethram, accused No.1 and the other accused with the intention of causing hurt to the defacto complainant,

¶25

Bail Appln. No. 3631 of 2022 3

¶26

obstructed him and hurled abuses against him. Accused No.1 slapped on the left cheek of the defacto complainant. The other accused also attacked the defacto complainant. Suddenly, accused No.1, who was carrying a stone, threw the same at the face of the defacto complainant causing fracture to the bridge of his nose.

¶27

The case of the petitioner is that he has been falsely implicated in this crime. It is submitted that the petitioner has been arrayed as an accused on mistaken identity. Originally, the F.I.R. named only accused No.1, and others were noted as identifiable persons. The petitioner is a plus two student of SNVHSS, Panayara. A clash occurred between accused No.1 and the defacto complainant near Kattumpuram Devi Temple. In the scene of occurrence, a number of students assembled. The defacto complainant lodged F.I.S. against accused No.1 and others.

¶28

It is submitted that the petitioner has no involvement in the alleged incident. No specific overt act has been alleged against the petitioner.

¶29

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶30

Bail Appln. No. 3631 of 2022 4

¶31

The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail plea of the petitioner on the ground that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required. The materials placed before the Court do not reveal any specific allegation against the petitioner. There is nothing to show that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required.

¶32

This Court finds that there is doubt in the genuineness of the allegations against the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to get the benefits contemplated in Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶33

Though this Court is of the view that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of Section 438 Cr.P.C., the apprehension of the learned Public Prosecutor that uninterrupted investigation of the case may be affected if the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not facilitated, cannot be lost sight of. Deducing the broad principles for granting pre-arrest bail as provided under Section 438 Cr.P.C the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and another v. State of Punjab (AIR 1980 SC 1632) held that while granting relief under Section 438(1) Cr.P.C, appropriate conditions can be

¶34

Bail Appln. No. 3631 of 2022 5

¶35

imposed under sub-section (2) so as to ensure an uninterrupted investigation. It was held that one of such conditions could even be that in the event of the police making out a case of a likely discovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, the person released on bail shall be liable to be taken in police custody for facilitating the discovery.

¶36

In the result, this Bail Application is allowed as follows :-

¶37

(i) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer on 15.11.2022 between 10 A.M and 11 A.M., for interrogation.

¶38

(ii) The petitioner shall co-operate with the investigating agency.

¶39

(iii) The Station House Officer, Ayiroor Police Station is directed to release the petitioner on bail, in the event he is arrested, on his executing bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum.

¶40

(iv) The petitioner should surrender himself to the Police for a brief period, if a discovery is to be made under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.

¶41

Bail Appln. No. 3631 of 2022 6

¶42

(v) The petitioner shall not influence the witnesses or

¶43

tamper with the evidence.

¶44

K.BABU JUDGE

¶45

sbk/-

Aromal.S v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aromal.S 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Batiappa @ Ananda Poojary Vs State of Kerala

Somarajan Vs State of Kerala

Nanu Vs the State of Kerala

Ramesh T Vs State of Kerala

Somji Prasad Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Latheef Vs State of Kerala