Allowed

Midhesh P.M., v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC9 Mar 2022Bail Appl./578/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner accused in Crime No. 1259 of 2021, noting that the only non-bailable offence alleged was under Section 354 IPC, and a separate FIR had been registered against the complainant.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted anticipatory bail subject to execution of bond with sureties, cooperation with investigation, non-interference with witnesses, and no commission of other crimes.

Midhesh P.M., Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 9^TH DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 18TH PHALGUNA, 1943

¶5

BAIL APPL. NO. 578 OF 2022

¶6

CRIME NO.1259/2021 OF PERAMANGALAM POLICE STATION, THRISSUR

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

MIDHESH P.M., AGED 31 YEARS S/O.MANORAHARAN, PULIKKAL HOUSE, VARADIYAM, AVANUR (PO), PIN-680 541.

¶9

BY ADVS. C.A.ANOOP R.KRISHNA

¶10

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:

¶11

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 031.

¶12

2 STATIOIN HOUSE OFFICER, PERAMANGALAM POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT680 545.

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

..2..

BA No.578/2022

ORDER

This is an application for anticipatory bail.

¶18

The petitioner is the accused in Crime No. 1259 of 2021 of Peramangalam Police Station, Thrissur District, which was registered alleging commission of offences under Sections 447, 294(B), 506(I), 341, 323, 427 & 354 of the Indian Penal Code .

¶19

The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner trespassed into the house of the de facto complainant and attacked the son of the de facto complainant and when the de facto complainant intervened, the petitioner assaulted and attacked her and thereby, the petitioner committed the offences alleged against him.

¶20

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that amongst the offences alleged against the petitioner, the only non bailable offence is that under Section 354 of the IPC. It is submitted that at the instance of the petitioner, Crime No. 1255 of 2021 of the very same Police Station has been registered against the de facto complainant and others, alleging commission of offences including that under Section 308 of the IPC. It is further submitted that when

¶21

..3..

¶22

BA No.578/2022

¶23

the petitioner was coming through a lane riding his bike, there occurred a wordy altercation regarding a block created by the vehicle of the de facto complainant, following which, the petitioner left the place and reached his house. Thereafter, the de facto complainant and others attacked the petitioner and caused severe injuries to him leading to the registration of Crime No. 1255 of 2021. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, Crime No. 1259 of 2021 is nothing, but, a counter blast. It is submitted that the petitioner had no occasion to trespass into the house of the de facto complainant and to assault her son or to assault or attack the de facto complainant.

¶24

The learned Public Prosecutor points out the circumstances appearing from the records. It is submitted that there are clear allegations in the First Information Statement of the de facto complainant against the petitioner.

¶25

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the nature of the allegations against the petitioner, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner as the only non bailable offence alleged against the petitioner is that under Section 354 of IPC. I must also take note of the fact that Crime

¶26

..4..

¶27

BA No.578/2022

¶28

No.1255 of 2021 of the very same Police Station was registered against the de facto complainant and others at the instance of the petitioner alleging commission of offences including that under Section 308 of the IPC.

¶29

In the result, this application is allowed and it is directed that the petitioner shall be released on bail, in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No. 1259 of 2021 of Peramangalam Police Station, Thrissur District, subject to the following conditions:

¶30

(a) Petitioner shall execute bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/(Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court.

¶31

(b) Petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation and appear before the investigating officer in Crime No. 1259 of 2021 of Peramangalam Police Station, Thrissur District, whenever called upon to do so;

¶32

(c) Petitioner shall not attempt to interfere with the investigation or to influence or intimidate the de-facto complainant o r any witness in Crime No. 1259 of 2021 of

¶33

BA No.578/2022

¶34

..5..

¶35

Peramangalam Police Station, Thrissur District;

¶36

(d)Petitioner shall not involve in any other crime while on bail.

¶37

If any of the aforesaid conditions is violated, the investigating officer in Crime No. 1259 of 2021 of Peramangalam Police Station, Thrissur District, may file an application before the jurisdictional court, for cancellation of bail.

Sd/-

GOPINATH P.

JUDGE

bka/09.03.2022

Midhesh P.M., v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Midhesh P.M., 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

Sulfikar B. Vs State of Kerala

Gulam Razool.M. Vs State of Kerala

Mujeeb Rahman Vs the State of Kerala

Wilfred Aramban Vs State of Kerala

Sankaranarayanan Vs State of Kerala

Shihabudeen Jamal Vs State of Kerala