Allowed

Shan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC21 Mar 2022Bail Appl./737/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court granted anticipatory bail to a petitioner arrayed as the fourth accused in a criminal case alleging a public gang assault. The court noted the petitioner was transported by a hired auto-rickshaw and granted bail with conditions including execution of a bond and not contacting witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on anticipatory bail subject to executing a bond of Rs.50,000 with sureties, appearing before the investigating officer, and not contacting witnesses.

Shan Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

B.A.No.737/2022

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.

¶6

MONDAY, THE 21^ST DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 30TH PHALGUNA, 1943

¶7

BAIL APPL. NO. 737 OF 2022

¶8

CRIME NO.122 OF 2022 OF CHADAYAMANGALAM POLICE STATION, KOLLAM

¶9

DISTRICT

¶10

PETITIONER/ACCUSED (A2):

¶11

SHAN, S/O. SHAJI AGED 21 YEARS SHAW MANZIL, CHADAYAMANGALAM P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT., PIN - 691534

¶12

BY ADV K.V.ANIL KUMAR

¶13

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶14

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

¶15

OTHER PRESENT:

¶16

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

¶17

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

B.A.No.737/2022

ORDER

This is an application for anticipatory bail.

¶22

The petitioner is the 4^th accused in Crime No.122/2022 of Chadayamangalam Police Station, Kollam District alleging commission of offences under Sections 294(b), 323, 324,m 308, 143, 147 & 148 r/w. Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. Though the petitioner is described as 2^nd accused in the bail application, the learned Public Prosecutor states that the petitioner is actually arrayed as the 4^th accused.

¶23

The allegation is that the petitioner along with the other accused in the case attacked the de facto complainant and his brother and caused injuries to them. It is alleged that the 1^st accused in the case had attacked the de facto complainant using a knuckle duster and that the 3^rd accused had beaten up one Sakeer with a stick. It is also alleged that accused Nos.4 to 11 had also attacked the de facto complainant and his brother using sticks and rods.

¶24

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is absolutely innocent in the matter. It is submitted that the petitioner is an auto-rickshaw driver whose only role was to drop the 1^st accused to the place where the incident took place. It is submitted that the petitioner had dropped the 1^st accused on the belief that he was a bona fide passenger and without knowing that he was intending to attack the de facto complainant and his brother. It is submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the matter and he was present at the site only on account of the fact that the 1^st accused had hired his auto-rickshaw for the purpose of travelling to the place in

B.A.No.737/2022

question.

Heard the learned Public Prosecutor also.

¶29

The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the grant of bail. It is submitted that going by the contents of the First Information Statement of the de facto complainant, there are clear allegations against all the accused including the petitioner herein. It is submitted that a thorough investigation is required in the matter as fairly serious injuries were caused to the de facto complainant owing to the attack by the petitioner and the other accused. It is submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to be granted anticipatory bail.

¶30

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the case put forth by the petitioner that he is only an auto-rickshaw driver, who was hired by the 1^st accused to drop the 1^st accused in the place in question, I am of the opinion that the petitioner can be granted anticipatory bail subject to conditions. I have also note that the thrust of the allegations is against accused Nos.1 and 3.

¶31

In the result, this application is allowed. It is directed that the petitioner shall be released on anticipatory bail, in the event of arrest in Crime No.122/2022 of Chadayamangalam Police Station subject to the following conditions:-

¶32

(i) Petitioner shall execute a separate 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;

¶33

(ii) Petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer in Crime No.122/2022 of Chadayamangalam Police Station at 10 a.m. on 29.3.2022 and

¶34

B.A.No.737/2022

¶35

¶36

30.3.2022 and thereafter whenever called upon to do so;

¶37

(iii) Petitioner shall not attempt to contact the de facto complainant or interfere with the investigation or to influence or intimidate any witness in Crime No.122/2022 of Chadayamangalam Police Station;

¶38

(iv) Petitioner shall not involve in any other crime while on bail. If any of the aforesaid conditions are violated, the Investigating officer in Crime No.122/2022 of Chadayamangalam Police Station may file an application before the jurisdictional Court for cancellation of bail.

¶39

sd/-

¶40

GOPINATH P. JUDGE

acd

B.A.No.737/2022

APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 737/2022

¶45

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

¶46

Annexure-A A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 122 / 2022 OF CHADAYAMANGALAM POLCIE STATION.

Shan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shan 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

Shahin T. Vs State of Kerala, Represented by the Public Prosecutor

Ajmal (A-1) Vs State of Kerala

Vipin Das, Vs State of Kerala

Saji Vs State of Kerala

Sangeeth Kumar P Vs State of Kerala

Hamza Vs State of Kerala