Allowed

Amal Raj @ Chandu v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC14 Mar 2022Bail Appl./446/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Kerala allowed bail application filed by five accused persons in Case No. 55/2022 for anticipatory bail against charges of cheating, assault, and causing grievous hurt. The court imposed conditions including execution of bond with sureties.

What did the court decide?

Allowed anticipatory bail directed on conditions of bond execution with sureties, appearance when summoned, and no contact with complainant or interference with investigation.

Amal Raj @ Chandu Vs State of Kerala — Domestic Violence | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

B.A.No.446/2022

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.

¶6

MONDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 23RD PHALGUNA, 1943
BAIL APPL. NO. 446 OF 2022

¶7

CRIME NO.55/2022 OF KARUNAGAPALLY POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT

¶8

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶9

1 AMAL RAJ @ CHANDU AGED 22 YEARS, AMBADIYIL, KALLELI BHAGAM POST, KARUNAGAPALLY, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 690519

¶10

2AJIL KUMAR @ KANDAR
AGED 35 YEARS, S/O. ASHOKAN, NARAKATHUM VALAYIL,
KALLELI BHAGAM POST, KARUNAGAPALLY,
KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 690519

¶11

3 SANANDU S

¶12

AGED 21 YEARS

¶13

S/O. SANTHOSH, AJIBHAVANAM, KALLELI BHAGAM POST,
KARUNAGAPALLY, KOLLAM DISTRICT

¶14

4 SHARATH

¶15

AGED 21 YEARS

¶16

S/O. JAYAN, SHARATH BHAVANAM, KALLELI BHAGAM POST,
KARUNAGAPALLY, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 690519

¶17

5 JITHU VIJAYAN @ RAMAN AGED 22 YEARS,S/O. VIJAYAN, KUNNEL, KALLELI BHAGAM POST, KARUNAGAPALLY, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 690519

¶18

BY ADV E.C.AHAMED FAZIL

¶19

RESPONDENT/STATE:

¶20

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶21

B.A.No.446/2022

¶22

¶23

ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031

¶24

2 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE KARUNAGAPALLY POLICE STATION, KARUNAGAPALLY POST, KOLLAM DISTIRCT, PIN - 690544

¶25

BY ADV PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶26

OTHER PRESENT:

¶27

SRI. T.R. RENJITH (SR.PP)

¶28

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
14.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

B.A.No.446/2022

ORDER

This is an application for anticipatory bail.

¶33

The petitioners are the accused in Crime No.55/2022 of Karunagapally Police Station, Kollam District alleging commission of offences under Sections 294(b), 447, 323, 324, 506 & 308 r/w. Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶34

At the outset the learned Public Prosecutor submits that the offence under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code has also been incorporated following receipt of medical examination report which shows that the father of the de facto complainant suffered a fracture on his scalp owing to the attack by the petitioners.

¶35

The gist of the prosecution case is this:- On 11.1.2022, at about 4.30 p.m., a minor accident took place in front of the house of the de facto complainant. A car being driven by the 1^st petitioner in this case hit a scooter of a woman and there occurred some arguments between them. It appears that the father of the de facto complainant on hearing the commotion outside his house intervened the matter and supported the lady on the scooter. Thereupon, the 1^st petitioner/1^st accused threatened the father of the de facto complainant and left the place. Thereafter, he returned with the other accused in the case and assaulted the

¶36

B.A.No.446/2022

¶37

¶38

father of the de facto complainant and the uncle of the de facto complainant.

¶39

The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are absolutely innocent in the matter. It is submitted that the allegations have been falsely raised. The petitioners had no occasion to attack the father of the de facto complainant or his uncle. It is submitted that, at any rate, considering the nature of the allegations, custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not necessary in the matter. It is also submitted that the sister of the 1^st petitioner/1^st accused has filed a complaint against the father of the de facto complainant alleging commission of offences under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code and the provisions of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

¶40

The learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the grant of bail. It is submitted that there are clear allegations against the petitioners. It is submitted that the petitioners are clearly not entitled to be granted anticipatory bail considering the nature of the allegations. However it is confirmed that apart from a case under the Mines and Minerals Act registered against the 2^nd petitioner, the petitioners have no criminal antecedents.

¶41

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the

¶42

B.A.No.446/2022

¶43

¶44

case and considering the nature of the allegations, I am of the view that the petitioners can be granted anticipatory bail subject to the following conditions.

¶45

In the result, this application is allowed. It is directed that the petitioners shall be released on anticipatory bail, in the event of arrest in Crime No.55/2022 of Karunagapally Police Station, Kollam District subject to the following conditions:-

¶46

(i) Petitioners shall execute separate bonds for sums of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court;

¶47

(ii) Petitioners shall appear before the investigating officer in Crime No.55/2022 of Karunagapally Police Station, Kollam District as and when summoned to do so;

¶48

(iii) Petitioners shall not attempt to contact the de facto complainant or interfere with the investigation or to influence or intimidate any witness in Crime No.55/2022 of Karunagapally Police Station, Kollam District;

¶49

(iv) Petitioners shall not involve in any other crime while on bail.

¶50

B.A.No.446/2022

¶51

¶52

If any of the aforesaid conditions are violated, the Investigating officer in Crime No.55/2022 of Karunagapally Police Station, Kollam District may file an application before the jurisdictional Court for cancellation of bail.

¶53

Sd/GOPINATH P. JUDGE

ats

B.A.No.446/2022

APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 446/2022

¶58

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

¶59

Annexure A1TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION
STATEMENT (WRITTEN DOWN FROM POLICE
STATION AND TYPED) LEADING TO CRIME NO.
55 OF 2022 OF KARUNAGAPALLY POLICE
STATION
Annexure A2TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT DATED 15.01.2022
FILED BY RANJU W/O. RAMESHAN BEFORE THE
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, KOLLAM CITY

Amal Raj @ Chandu v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amal Raj @ Chandu 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abhilash Vs State of Kerala

Sandeep P.S. Vs State of Kerala

Manoj Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Ajmal Vs State of Kerala

Prasamth Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Anil B @ Tintumon Vs State of Kerala