Dismissed

Renjith v. St a T E O F Kerala

Kerala HC27 May 2022Bail Appl./3977/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a second application for anticipatory bail in a case involving criminal trespass, assault, breakup, and snatching, the Court held that the serious injuries sustained by the victim necessitated arrest and custodial interrogation to ensure effective investigation, thereby dismissing the application.

What did the court decide?

Bail application dismissed with direction to surrender before the investigating officer; failure to do so could lead to arrest.

Renjith Vs St a T E O F Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

B.A.No.3977/2022 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN FRIDAY, THE 27^TH DAY OF MAY 2022 / 6TH JYAISHTA, 1944 BAIL APPL. NO. 3977 OF 2022

¶5

CRIME NO.378/2022 OF ERAVIPURAM POLICE STATION, KOLLAM

¶6

PETITIONER/1ST ACCUSED:

¶7

RENJITH, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.PUSHPANGADHAN, DEVAKI MANDIRAM, SHAKTHIKULANGARA, SHAKTHIKULANGARA VILLAGE, KOLLAM – 691581. BY ADV B.MOHANLAL

¶8

RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT:

¶9

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI – 682031. 2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, ERAVIPURAM POLICE STATION, ERAVIPU RAM P. O., KOLLAM – 691011.

¶10

SRI.DENNY DEVASSY-SR.GP

¶11

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27.05.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶12

B.A.No.3977/2022 2

¶13

A. BADHARUDEEN, J.

¶14

================================

¶15

B.A.No.3977 of 2022

¶16

================================

¶17

Dated this the 27^th day of May, 2022

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

This is the second application for anticipatory bail filed by the 1^st accused in Crime No.378 of 2022 of Eravipuram Police Station.

¶20

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶21

As per the case of the prosecution, it is alleged that on 31.03.2022 at about 9.30 p.m, accused Nos.1 and 2 criminally trespassed into the shop managed by the defacto complainant and owned by his father and thereafter, the first accused attempted to beat on the head of the defacto complainant and when it was restrained by using the left hand, the defacto complainant sustained fracture on his left hand and right clavicle. The allegation against the second accused is that he also beat and kicked the defacto complainant. It is alleged by the prosecution further that the first

¶22

B.A.No.3977/2022 3

¶23

accused snatched away mobile phone owned by the defacto complainant and also Rs.22,500/- from the shop. This is the basis on which, prosecution alleges commission of offences under Sections 452, 294(b), 323, 324, 326 and 392 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶24

It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that when the second accused surrendered before the investigating officer, in tune with the anticipatory bail granted by this Court, the police effected recovery of the weapon alleged to be used for commission of the offence. It is submitted further that the said fact could be gathered from the remand report. It is submitted further that this Court earlier dismissed the anticipatory bail plea at the instance of the petitioner/1^st accused holding that arrest and custodial interrogation are necessary for the purpose of investigation and recovery of the weapon alleged to be used by the 1^st accused. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, since the weapon was already recovered, the petitioner is entitled to

¶25

B.A.No.3977/2022 4

¶26

get anticipatory bail.

¶27

Whereas the learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the bail application on the submission that the petitioner herein had used an iron rod to beat the defacto complainant and in consequence thereof the defacto complainant sustained serious injuries and multiple fractures. Therefore, the learned Public Prosecutor argued that arrest and custodial interrogation are necessary in this case, where serious offences under Sections 452, 326 and 392 of I.P.C were alleged to be committed by the accused among other offences.

¶28

In this matter, soon after the occurrence, the defacto complainant was hospitalised at 10.10 p.m and the F.I statement was recorded on the next day. In the wound certificate of the defacto complainant, recorded on the date of occurrence at 10.10 p.m, the following serious injuries and 3 serious fractures noted:

¶29

“ABRASIONS: 2X1 cm on upper third of rights thigh, 2X1cm on dorsal aspect of left midforearm. Contusion right flank. LACERATED WOUNDS: 5X0.5X0.5cm on forehead, 7X1X0.5cm on left parietal

¶30

B.A.No.3977/2022 5

¶31

region. X-RAYS: left forearm shows fracture distal end of left Ulna, Right shoulder and Chest-shows fracture right clavicle. CT brain & facial bones: No obvious extra or intracranial haemorrhage or fracrtures visualised.”

¶32

In such a case, arrest and custodial interrogation are

¶33

absolutely necessary to get more details from the petitioner to have meaningful investigation and successful prosecution. In such a case, anticipatory bail cannot be granted.

¶34

Therefore, this bail application found to be meritless and is accordingly dismissed with direction to the petitioner to surrender before the investigating officer without fail and on failure, the investigating officer is directed to record his arrest without any delay, so as to have effective investigation of the crime.

¶35

This Bail Application is dismissed accordingly.

¶36

Sd/-

¶37

(A. BADHARUDEEN, JUDGE)

¶38

rtr/

¶39

B.A.No.3977/2022 6

¶40

APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 3977/2022

¶41

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES

¶42

Annexure.A1	THE TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE MANAGING PARTNER OF HIMA TOURIST HOME.
Annexure.A2	THE TRUE CITIZEN COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.378/2022 OF ERAVIPURAM POLICE STATION.
Annexure.A3	THE TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOS AND STATEMENTS PUBLISHED IN THE FACEBOOK BY THE DEFACTO COMPLAINANT.
Annexure.A4	THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT AND ITS RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE S.H.O., SAKTHIKULANGARA POLICE STATION.
Annexure.A5	THE TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN C.M.P. NO.1590/2021 DATED 18.11.2021 IN M.C.NO.115/2021 BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II, KOLLAM.
Annexure.A6	THE TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTO AND THE FILTHY WORDS POSTED IN THE FACEBOOK BY THE DEFACTO COMPLAINANT.
Annexure.A7	THE TRUE COPY OF THE O.P. TICKETS OF THE PETITIONERS OBTAINED FROM GOVERNMENT TALUK HOSPITAL, NEENDAKARA.
Annexure.A8	THE TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF INTENSIVE CARE AND TREATMENT OBTAINED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER FROM ATHIRA HOSPITAL, CHAVARA .
Annexure.A9	THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 01/04/2022.
Annexure.A10	THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER, KOLLAM CITY ON 01/04/2022.

¶43

B.A.No.3977/2022	7
Annexure.A11	THE CARBON COPY OF THE ORDER IN ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION IN CRL.M.C.NO:640/2022 DISMISSED BY THE LEARNED SESSIONS JUDGE, KOLLAM ON 23/04/2022.
Annexure.A12	THE TRUE COPY OF THE BAIL APPLICATION NO: 3432/2022 DATED 10/05/2022 DISMISSED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT.
Annexure.A13	THE TRUE COPY OF THE REMAND REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II. KOLLAM DATED 16/05/2022.
Annexure.A14	THE TRUE COPY OF THE DISCHARGE SUMMARY DATED 24/03/2022 OBTAINED FROM N.S. MEMORIAL INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES, KOLLAM.

Renjith v. St a T E O F Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Renjith v. St a T E O F 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

Dhayana Lekshmi Vs Adarsh Ashok

George Varghese, Vs Treesa Sebastian

Anilkumar, Vs Vilasini M.P.

P.Sajid Vs State of Kerala

Gireeshkumar Vs Sanal Kumar

K. Pradeep Vs T. S. Devanandan