Partly allowed

Didhin @ Chumman, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC16 Feb 2022Bail Appl./7824/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bail application was filed by seven accused persons facing charges of riotining, assault, and attempted murder. The court observed that while one accused attempted to obstruct a car and attack occupants with an iron rod, one settled injured party, another (not a petitioner) remained aggrieved. The court denied anticipatory bail to the second petitioner accused of serious offences with an iron

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail denied to petitioner A4; allowed to petitioners A9 and A10 on conditions of surrender, bail bond execution, and non-interference with investigation.

Didhin @ Chumman, Vs State of Kerala — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SOPHY THOMAS

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 16^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 / 27TH MAGHA, 1943

¶5

BAIL APPL. NO. 7824 OF 2021

¶6

(CRIME NO.1147 OF 2021 OF WADAKANCHERRY POLICE STATION)

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

1 DIDHIN @ CHUMMAN, AGED 29 YEARS S/O. MUKUNDAN, AMBALAPRAMBIL, S N NAGAR DESOM, MULLURKARA VILLAGE.

¶9

2 MUSTHAFA @ MARIMUTHU, AGED 27 YEARS S/O. UMMAR, MANKARA, MULLURKARA DESOM, THRISSUR.

¶10

3 ABDUL SAMAD, AGED 36 YEARS S/O. MUHAMMED KUNNATHU PEEDIKAYIL, KANNAMPARA DESOM, MULLURKARA VILLAGE.

¶11

4 ANIL KUMAR @ ANNAKUTTY, AGED 40 YEARS S/O. VELAPPAN, MENGHATHU HOUSE, KUMARAPANAL, VARAVOOR VILLAGE.

¶12

5 MURALI, AGED 40 YEARS S/O. ITTAMAN, KURUMBOOR HOUSE, KATTAPANA DESOM, MULLURKARA, THRISSUR.

¶13

6 SREERAJ, AGED 28 YEARS S/O. RAMACHANDRAN, MENANGHAT HOUSE, KANNAMPARA DESOM, MULLURKARA VILLAGE.

¶14

7 VINOOP, AGED 29 YEARS S/O. VENUGOPALAN, PAINKULATH, MENANGHAT HOUSE.

¶15

B.A No.7824 of 2021

¶16

¶17

BY ADVS. S.RAJEEV K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN V.VINAY M.S.ANEER SARATH K.P.

¶18

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶19

1 STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031

¶20

2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER, POLICE STATION, IDUKKI, (CRIME NO. 1147/2021 OF WADAKANCHERRY POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT680 582).

¶21

ADDL. R3 SHARAFUDHEEN, AGED 23 YEARS, S/O.SHAMSUDDHIN, R/AT VALIAVEETIL HOUSE, MULLOORKARA VILLAGE, VAZHAKALA DESOM, THALAPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR – 685063.

¶22

BY ADV.SRI.ANAND KALYANAKRISHNAN

¶23

OTHER PRESENT:

¶24

BY SMT. MAYA M.N, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR.

¶25

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16.02.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

B.A No.7824 of 2021

SOPHY THOMAS, J.

Bail Application No.7824 of 2021

¶30

Dated this the 16^th day of February, 2022

¶31

O R D E R

¶32

This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438

¶33

Cr.P.C.

¶34

Originally, the petition was filed by seven accused persons in Crime No.1147 of 2021 of Wadakkancherry Police Station, registered under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 308 read with Section 149 of IPC. Now the petition has been proceeded with by petitioners 2, 6 and 7 (A4, A9 and A10) only, as against others, the petition stands dismissed as it has become infructuous.

¶35

The prosecution allegation is that, on 05.09.2021 at 4.30 p.m, the accused persons, ten in number, formed themselves into an unlawful assembly, committed rioting armed with deadly weapons and A4 blocked the car wherein the de facto complainant and his friends were travelling by placing his motorcycle across the road. Thereafter, A4 and A6 assaulted the de facto complainant using sticks. A1, A2 and A5 dragged him

¶36

¶37

B.A No.7824 of 2021

¶38

out of the car. A2 and A8 fisted on his face and A5 beat on his head with a stick. A4, A6 and A8 stamped him and A7 assaulted him using stones covered in a cloth. He was also fisted by A7, A9 and A10. A4 and A6 further assaulted the friend of the de facto complainant Mr.Sharafudhin.

¶39

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

¶40

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that, the petitioners are absolutely innocent of the offences alleged and on a misunderstanding, the de facto complainant happened to state their names. Now the case has been settled between the petitioners and the de facto complainant, and an affidavit of the de facto complainant has been filed stating that, the matter has been settled and the de facto complainant has no objection in granting anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶41

Learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that, apart from the de facto complainant, another injured also was there and the petitioners have no case that the matter is settled with the other injured also.

¶42

The report of the Investigating Officer shows that the

¶43

4^th accused was the person who blocked the car of the de facto

¶44

B.A No.7824 of 2021 5

¶45

complainant placing his motorcycle across the road and he attacked the de facto complainant and his friend with an iron rod. Though the de facto complainant has settled the matter with the petitioners, the other injured is not ready to settle the issue. The wound certificate of the de facto complainant and his friend shows that, there were lacerated wounds on their head which would have turned fatal.

¶46

Since the allegations against the 4^th accused are serious in nature, attracting an offence punishable under Section 308 of IPC also, this Court is not inclined to release the 2^nd petitioner (A4) on anticipatory bail. Since the allegations against petitioners 6 and 7 (A9 & A10) are not so serious, their custodial interrogation is not needed and hence, their application can be allowed.

¶47

In the result, the petition is dismissed as against the 2^nd petitioner (A4) and is allowed in favour of petitioners 6 and 7 (A9 & A10) on the following conditions:

¶48

i) The petitioners 6 and 7 (A9 and A10) are directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer on or before 21.02.2022. The Investigating Officer can collect all materials and evidence within their reach which are useful for the investigation.

¶49

B.A No.7824 of 2021

¶50

¶51

(ii) In the event of arrest, petitioners 6 and 7 shall be released on bail on executing bond for Rs.50,000/(Rupees fifty thousand only) each, with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting officer.

¶52

(iii) The petitioners 6 and 7 shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required by the Investigating Officer.

¶53

(iv) They shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer.

¶54

(v) They shall not tamper with the evidence.

¶55

(vi) They shall not commit any offence while on bail.

¶56

In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the

¶57

Jurisdictional Magistrate is empowered to cancel the bail, in accordance with law.

¶58

Sd/-

¶59

SOPHY THOMAS JUDGE

¶60

smp

Didhin @ Chumman, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Didhin @ Chumman, 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

Rohithkumar Rajesh Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Nasar Vs State of Kerala

E.K.Sabu Vs the State of Kerala

Silesh V.S. Vs State of Kerala

Sreeja. S Vs State of Kerala

Sharafudeen Vs the State of Kerala