Allowed

Akhil.S v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC14 Jun 2023Bail Appl./3387/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court disposed of an anticipatory bail application filed by accused persons. Noting that the accused had already surrendered to investigate and weapons were recovered pursuant to a previous interim order, the court granted bail subject to stringent conditions regarding future appearance and cooperation with the investigation.

What did the court decide?

Accused released on bail subject to executing bond of Rs.1,00,000/- each with sureties, surrendering for interrogation within two weeks, appearing weekly, and not tampering with witnesses or leaving K

Akhil.S 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 ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 24TH JYAISHTA, 1945

¶5

BAIL APPL. NO. 3387 OF 2023

¶6

CRIME NO.391/2023 OF MALAYINKIL POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT

¶7

PETITIONERS/IDENTIFIABLE ACCUSED PERSONS:

¶8

1AKHIL.S
AGED 31 YEARS
S/O SURESH, RESIDING AT CHEMMANNIL MELE PUTHEN VEEDU,
NARUVAMOODU P.O, PALLICHAL, NARIVAMOODU,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN – 695020

¶9

2AMAL.S
AGED 25 YEARS
S/O SURESH, RESIDING AT CHEMMANNIL MELE PUTHEN VEEDU,
NARUVAMOODU P.O, PALLICHAL, NARIVAMOODU,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN – 695020

¶10

BY ADVS.
J.R.PREM NAVAZ
SUMEEN S.
PREETHA RANI M.S.
O.MOHAMED BASIL KOYA THANGAL
MUHAMMED SWADIQ

¶11

RESPONDENT/STATE:

¶12

STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN – 682031

¶13

BY ADV PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
ADV SEETHA S -SR PP

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
14.06.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

BAIL APPL. NO. 3387 OF 2023

¶16

2

¶17

ORDER

¶18

The petitioners are the accused Nos.1 and 2, in Crime No.391/2023 of Malayinkil Police Station. The offences alleged against petitioners are under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 294(b), 323, 324, 354, 450, 395, 307 and 149 of IPC.

¶19

The prosecution case is that, due to previous animosity of the 1^st accused towards the son of the defacto complainant, the accused Nos. 1 to 5 formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and in the prosecution of the common object, on 02.04.2023 at 09.30 hours criminally trespassed into the residence of the defacto complainant and voluntarily caused hurt using dangerous weapons such as sword stick and thereby caused injuries to the defacto complainant, her son and daughter-in-law. The crime was registered in such circumstances, and as the petitioners apprehend arrest in connection with the investigation of the said case, this application for anticipatory bail is submitted.

¶20

Heard Sri.J.R.Prem Navaz, learned counsel appearing

¶21

for the petitioners and Smt.Seeth S., learned Public Prosecutor for

¶22

BAIL APPL. NO. 3387 OF 2023 3

¶23

the State.

¶24

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that

¶25

the petitioners are innocent of all the allegations. According to him, the petitioners were falsely implicated, and in fact, it was the 1^st petitioner who suffered injuries in the incident, as the son of the defacto complainant had assaulted him. In connection with the aforesaid crime, the Malayinkil Police has registered crime No.400/2023 against the son of the defacto complainant for the offences punishable under Sections 447 and 427 of IPC. It was also contended that earlier, the Malayinkil Police Station registered Crime No.7/2023 against the son of the defacto complainant, and the subsequent incident was a retaliation of the same. It was further pointed out that, when the matter came up before this Court on 09.05.2023, an interim order was passed by this Court directing that in the event of arrest, the petitioners shall be released on bail, on executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- each with two solvent sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the officer concerned. It was also observed by this Court that the

¶26

¶27

BAIL APPL. NO. 3387 OF 2023

¶28

investigating officer shall be free to summon the petitioners for interrogation after issuing notice under Section 41A of Cr.P.C. It is pointed out that, in compliance with the said order, the petitioners have already surrendered and subjected themselves to interrogation and weapons were already seized. Hence it was submitted that there is no necessity for custodial interrogation of the petitioners.

¶29

On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor would oppose the aforesaid application by pointing out that there are specific allegations against the petitioners. The incident was planned, and the accused persons inflicted injuries upon three persons by using dangerous weapons. Therefore, the dismissal of the bail application was sought.

¶30

I have gone through the records and heard the contentions raised from both sides. From the materials available on records, there are allegations against the petitioners, but the fact remains that in compliance with the interim order passed by this Court on 09.05.2023, the petitioners surrendered before the

¶31

¶32

BAIL APPL. NO. 3387 OF 2023

¶33

investigation officer and the recovery of the weapons were also affected. The aforesaid fact is confirmed by the learned Public Prosecutor as well. In such circumstances, I do not find any necessity for custodial interrogation of the petitioners, and therefore, the petitioners can be directed to be released on bail subject to conditions. While taking this view, I have also considered the fact that no criminal antecedents of any of the petitioners were brought to my notice.

¶34

In the result, the application is disposed of on the following conditions:-

¶35

i) The petitioners shall surrender before the

¶36

Investigating Officer, within a period of two weeks from today, for subjecting themselves to interrogation.

¶37

ii) After interrogation, the petitioners shall be released on bail on the very same day of surrender upon the petitioners executing a bond for Rs 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum, to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer.

¶38

¶39

BAIL APPL. NO. 3387 OF 2023

¶40

iii) The petitioners shall fully cooperate with the

¶41

investigation, including subjecting themselves to the deemed police custody for the purpose of recovery, if any, as and when demanded.

¶42

iv) The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating

¶43

Officer between 10.00 a.m and 11.00 a.m every Saturday until the filing of the final report.

¶44

v) The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required.

¶45

vi) The petitioners shall not commit any offence of similar nature while on bail.

¶46

vii) The petitioners shall not make any attempt to contact any of the prosecution witnesses, directly or through any other

¶47

person, or in any other way try to tamper with the evidence or influence any witnesses or other persons related to the investigation.

¶48

viii) The petitioners shall not leave the State of Kerala without the permission of the Jurisdictional Court.

¶49

BAIL APPL. NO. 3387 OF 2023

¶50

¶51

In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the jurisdictional Court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation of bail, if any, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law.

¶52

Sd/-
ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
JUDGE

¶53

scs

Akhil.S v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akhil.S 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

Narendra K.Savla Vs State of Kerala

Ramani , Vs State of Kerala

Retheepkumar.R Vs State of Kerala

Davi v.Thattil Vs State of Kerala

Mohanan Vs State of Kerala

Pavitra Vs Asheetha K.K