Allowed

Ajmal (A-1) v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC18 Mar 2022Bail Appl./939/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a regular bail application under Sections 341, 294(b), 323, etc. IPC, the High Court of Kerala granted bail to four accused petitioners implicated in an affray case despite their criminal antecedents and the Public Prosecutor's opposition, given their custody duration.

What did the court decide?

Granted regular bail to petitioners subject to execution of separate bonds of Rs.50,000/- each with solvent sureties.

Ajmal (A-1) 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

FRIDAY, THE 18^TH DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 27TH PHALGUNA, 1943

¶5

BAIL APPL. NO. 939 OF 2022

¶6

CRIME NO.1630/2021 OF SASTHAMCOTTA POLICE STATION

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 4:

¶8

1AJMAL (A-1), AGED 27 YEARS
S/O ISMAILKUTTY, CHANGAYIL VEEDU,
NORTH MYNAGAPPALLY P.O,
MYNAGAPPALLY VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 690519
2SREE SANKAR (A-2), AGED 18 YEARS
S/O SINDHU, SREE NILAYAM,
MUZHANGODI, THODIYOOR P.O, KARUNAGAPPALLY THALUK,
KOLLAM DISTRICT,, PIN - 690523
3NEBEEL (A-3), AGED 27 YEARS
S/O SHAJAHAN, NAZILA MANZIL,
VENGARA, THODIYOOR NORTH P.O,
KARUNAGAPPALLY THALUK,
KOLLAM DISTRICT
, PIN - 690523
4ANEESH (A-4), AGED 32 YEARS
S/O IBRAHIMKUTTY, THADAVILAYIL,
NORTH MYNAGAPPALLY P.O,
MYNAGAPPALLY VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT
, PIN - 690519
BY ADV P.V.DILEEP

¶9

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶10

1STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM
, PIN - 682031
2THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
SASTHAMCOTTA POLICE STATION,
SASTHAMCOTTA P.O, KOLLAM DISTRICT.
, PIN - 690521
SMT. SEETHA .S. (SR.PP)

¶11

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
18.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶12

BAIL APPL. NO. 939 OF 2022 2

¶13

ORDER

¶14

This is an application for regular bail.

¶15

Petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 4 in Crime No.1630/2021 of Sasthamcotta police station, alleging commission of offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 323, 324, 427 and 308 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶16

Allegation against the petitioners is that on 29.11.2021, at 11.00 pm, when the de facto complainant and his friend were coming from their fish farm, the petitioners illegally restrained them and after using abusive words, the 1^st accused assaulted the de facto complainant with an iron rod and the 2^nd accused attempted to inflict injuries using a sword. It is alleged that the 3^rd accused also attempted to assault the de facto complainant and prevent the de facto complainant and his friend from proceeding further. The 4^th accused is alleged to have attacked the de facto complainant using his hands.

¶17

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are absolutely innocent in the matter. It is submitted that a wordy altercation took place between the petitioners and the de facto complainant owing to the fact the de facto complainant was in the habit of dumping fish waste near to

¶18

BAIL APPL. NO. 939 OF 2022 3

¶19

the house of the petitioners. It is submitted that the petitioners are falsely implicated in the crime. It is submitted that there are no injuries commensurate with the allegations raised against the petitioners. It is submitted that the petitioners have been in custody for 50 days and their continued detention is not necessary for the purpose of any investigation.

¶20

Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the grant of bail. It is submitted that each of the petitioners have criminal antecedents and the details of the cases registered against the petitioners are pointed out to show that the petitioners are habitual offenders. It is submitted that the petitioners are not entitled to be released on bail . It is submitted that a final report has already been filed in the matter and the investigation conducted reveals that the allegations against the petitioners are true.

¶21

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the nature of allegations against the petitioners and despite the vehement objection of the learned Public Prosecutor on the ground that the petitioners have criminal antecedents, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioners considering the fact that the petitioners have been in custody for 50 days. Accordingly, this application for bail is

¶22

BAIL APPL. NO. 939 OF 2022 4

¶23

allowed and it is directed that the petitioner shall be released on bail subject to the following conditions:-

¶24

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

¶25

(ii) Petitioners shall appear before the investigating officer in Crime No.1630/2021 of Sasthamcotta Police station as and when called upon to do so;

¶26

(iii) The petitioner shall not attempt to influence or intimidate the de facto complainant or any witness in Crime No. 1630/2021 of Sasthamcotta police station;

¶27

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

¶28

If any of the aforesaid conditions are violated, the investigating officer in Crime No.1630/2021 of Sasthamcotta

¶29

police station may file an application before the jurisdictional court, for cancellation of bail.

sd/-

GOPINATH P.

JUDGE

ajt

Ajmal (A-1) v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajmal (A-1) 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

Ushadevi P T, Vs State of Kerala Represented by Public Prosecutor

Vayalapra Vijayan Vs State of Kerala

Xxx Vs State of Kerala

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

Vipin Das, Vs State of Kerala

Nandakumar H. Vs State of Kerala