Dismissed

Bipin Sunny v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC2 Mar 2023Bail Appl./269/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 CrPC regarding an assault case. The court rejected bail, holding that recovery of a weapon necessitated custodial interrogation and prima facie complicity was established based on the wound certificate and FIR.

What did the court decide?

No bail granted. Petition dismissed with order that arrest and custodial interrogation are necessary for recovery of weapon.

Bipin Sunny Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 2^ND DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 11TH PHALGUNA, 1944 BAIL APPL. NO. 269 OF 2023

¶5

CRIME NO.27 OF ALOOR POLICE STATION, THRISSUR
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN FIR 27/2023 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
OF FIRST CLASS - I, CHALAKUDY

¶6

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶7

BIPIN SUNNY
AGED 28 YEARS
S/O. SUNNY, MURIYAD,
ALOOR.P.S, THRISSUR RURAL.
PERMANENT R/AT PARIPPIL ETTATHOTTU,
ARIVILANJAPOYIL, JOSEGIRI.P.O,
ALAKODE, KANNUR-DIST., PIN - 670511
BY ADVS.
BIJU ANTONY ALOOR
K.P.PRASANTH
VISHNU DILEEP
T.S.KRISHNENDU
ARCHANA SURESH
JINSON JACOB

¶8

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:

¶9

1STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031
2THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
ALOOR POLICE STATION. THRISSUR DISTRICT.
PIN - 679303
ADDL R3GNANAPRAKASAM J
HOUSE NO. 7/338, MURIYAD P. O.,
THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 683

¶10

IS IMPLEADED AS ADDL R3 AS PER ORDER DATED 16/01/2023
IN CRL MA 1/2023
BY ADVS.
P.LAKSHMI
BABU KARUKAPADATH
M.A.VAHEEDA
P.U.VINOD KUMAR
ARYA RAGHUNATH

¶11

¶12

BAIL APPL. NO. 269 OF 2023

¶13

VAISAKHI V.
T.M.MUHAMMED MUSTHAQ
AJWIN P LALSON
KARUKAPADATH WAZIM BABU
AYSHA E.M.

¶14

BY SRI.T V NEEMA, SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 02.03.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

¶16

¶17

BAIL APPL. NO. 269 OF 2023

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Dated this the 2^nd day of March, 2023

¶20

This is an application for anticipatory bail filed under

¶21

Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the sole accused in crime No.27/2023 of Aloor police station.

¶22

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel appearing for the defacto complainant and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶23

I have perused the case diary as such placed by the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶24

The prosecution case is that on 07.01.2023 at about 11 am, when the defacto complainant reached Muriyad, the accused herein wrongfully restrained the defacto complainant and attempted to prod on his abdomen with intention to commit culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Since the defacto complainant evaded, the same caused abrasion on the abdomen. Thereafter, the accused

¶25

¶26

BAIL APPL. NO. 269 OF 2023

¶27

again stabbed the defacto complainant and the same caused deep injury on his right wrist. On this premise, the prosecution alleges commission of offence punishable under Sections 341, 325 and 308 of IPC.

¶28

While pressing for anticipatory bail to the petitioner, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent. According to him, crime No.21/2023 of Aloor police station was registered initially, where the allegation was that accused Nos.1 to 50 therein, after forming into an unlawful assembly, attacked the defacto complainant and others therein due to animosity arose out of an occurrence whereby they left ‘Muriyad Zion Sabha’. Annexure A2 is the copy of FIR placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner to substantiate registration of the said crime. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner further that in consequences of the said occurrence, the defacto complainant was attacked by the 1^st accused, who is unknown,

¶29

BAIL APPL. NO. 269 OF 2023

¶30

5

¶31

on 07.01.2023 at about 12 hours while the followers of ‘Muriyad Zion Sabha’ were orchestrating an agitation before the house of the defacto complainant. Thus, it is argued that this case vide crime No.27/2023 is one registered as a counter blast against the case registered at the instance of the petitioner vide FIR No.26/2023. It is argued further that FIR No.26/2023 was registered at the instance of the petitioner herein is a subsequent occurrence after Annexure A2 FIR (Crime No.21/2023 of Aloor police station). Accordingly, the learned counsel would submit that the petitioner is innocent and allegations are false and therefore, he is liable to be released on bail. He has expressed the willingness of the petitioner to co-operate with the investigation to aid the investigation while pressing for anticipatory bail.

¶32

Whereas the learned counsel for the defacto complainant filed a detailed counter along with photographs showing overt acts at the instance of the petitioner. He also

¶33

¶34

BAIL APPL. NO. 269 OF 2023

¶35

would submit that the defacto complainant in this case is a native of Tamil Nadu and he has no connection with the occurrence narrated in FIR No.21/2023 or FIR No.26/2023. According to the learned counsel for the defacto complainant, the petitioner was attacked by the accused/the petitioner herein without any rationale and thereby he sustained deep injuries, as could be borne out from the photographs also, apart from the medical documents. Accordingly, he zealously opposed grant of anticipatory bail.

¶36

The learned Public Prosecutor also expressed the view of the learned counsel appearing for the defacto complainant pointing out the necessity of custodial interrogation to have recovery of weapon, while strongly opposing grant of anticipatory bail.

¶37

While addressing the rival contentions, I have

¶38

perused the FIS and the FIR in this crime (Crime No.27/2023 of Aloor police station). In this crime, the specific allegation is

¶39

¶40

BAIL APPL. NO. 269 OF 2023

¶41

that at 11 am on 07.01.2023, the accused herein reached Muriyad and wrongfully restrained the defacto complainant and attempted to cause jab injury on his abdomen with intention to cause culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Since the defacto complainant evaded the attack, he sustained injuries on his right hand and injury on the abdomen.

¶42

The relevant records pertaining to this crime produced by the learned Public Prosecutor would contain the copy of wound certificate prepared at 1 pm on 07.01.2023 by the causality Medical Officer, Kodakara Santhi Hospital. In the wound certificate, it is stated that the defacto complainant approached the hospital with alleged history of assault by known person. On clinical observation, the following injuries were noted.

¶43

Stab wound over Rt epicondyle region 4x1x1 cm

¶44

Stab wound over Rt above draconian region 4x1x1cm

¶45

Wound over right palm and on 3^rd and 4^th finger.

¶46

Abrasion over right arm and abrasion over right side

¶47

¶48

BAIL APPL. NO. 269 OF 2023

¶49

of abdomen anterior.

¶50

Though it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that this crime was registered as a counterblast against crime No.26/2023, it is discernible from the FIR in crime No.26/2023 otherwise. On perusal of the recitals in the FIR in the present crime, the time of occurrence is stated as 11 am. Whereas, in crime No.26/2023, the time of occurrence is stated as 12 noon. If so, prima facie, it appears that the occurrence narrated in this crime is one occurred on 11 am on 07.01.2023 and the occurrence in crime No.26/2023 registered on the basis of statement recorded by the petitioner herein is at 12 noon. It is true that police registered first crime (crime No.26/2023) before registering crime No.27/2023. However, for the said reason, it cannot be held that the occurrence in the present crime is connected with other occurrence since there is time gap of 1 hour between the two occurrences. It is discernible that difference of opinion

¶51

¶52

BAIL APPL. NO. 269 OF 2023

¶53

between two groups has been prevailing in relation to a matter whereby some members of ‘Muriyad Zion Sabha’ left the Sabha and for which crime No.21/2023 was registered. That apart, on perusal of FIR in crime No.26/2023, no serious allegations could be gathered since the offences are all bailable in nature (offences under Sections 144, 148, 342, 323, 324, 206 and 427 r/w Section 149 of IPC).

¶54

The crucial question to be considered in this case is whether the prosecution allegation as to commission of offences under Sections 341, 325 and 308 of IPC is made out. Here, the wound certificate along with the statement of the defacto complainant would go to show that the accused herein assaulted him and when he evaded, the same caused injuries described hereinabove after referring the wound certificate. Therefore, this occurrence cannot be read along with other occurrences and the petitioner’s complicity in this occurrence is very well established, prima facie as per the prosecution

¶55

¶56

BAIL APPL. NO. 269 OF 2023

¶57

case. In such a case, arrest and custodial interrogation of the petitioner are absolutely necessary for the purpose of recovery

¶58

of the weapon alleged to be used by the petitioner. Therefore,

¶59

this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail.

¶60

Accordingly, this petition stands dismissed.

¶61

Sd/-

¶62

A. BADHARUDEEN JUDGE

¶63

nkr

¶64

BAIL APPL. NO. 269 OF 2023

¶65

¶66

APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 269/2023

¶67

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

¶68

Annexure 1CITIZEN COPY OF FIR U/VIDE NO. 27/2023
OF ALOOR.P.S DATED 08/01/2023.
Annexure 2CITIZEN COPY OF FIR U/VIDE NO. 21/2023
OF ALOOR.P.S DATED 06/01/2023.

¶69

RESPONDENT ANNEXURES
Annexure R3(a)A TRUE COPY OF 9 PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE
RELEVANT INCIDENTS AT THE SPOT.

Bipin Sunny v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bipin Sunny 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

Mohammed Anas Vs State of Kerala

Soman @ Somashekharan Vs State of Kerala

Arun Gopal M.S Vs the State of Kerala

Ramachandran Vs State of Kerala

Velayudhan Achari Vs State of Kerala

Sumesh Vs Station House Officer