Allowed

Shinumon a v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC14 Mar 2023Bail Appl./608/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala granted anticipatory bail to an accused involved in an assault case alleging offences under sections 294, 323, 324, and 504/506 IPC. Despite the petitioner having nine prior criminal antecedents including four in 2022, the court held that parliamentary complicity was low, no weapon was used against the respondent in the instant case, and injuries were trivial.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted anticipatory bail on conditions including surrender within ten days, execution of bond with sureties, cooperation with investigation, and regular appearances before the Investigatin

Shinumon a Vs State of Kerala — Cheating and Forgery | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
TUESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 23RD PHALGUNA, 1944
BAIL APPL. NO. 608 OF 2023

¶4

CRIME NO. 60 OF 2023 OF PATHANAPURAM POLICE STATION, KOLLAM

¶5

PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO. 1:

¶6

SHINUMON A
AGED 24 YEARS
S/O ABDUL AZEEZ,
SHAN MANZIL, PATHANAPURAM P O,
PATHANAPURAM TALUK,
KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 689695

¶7

BY ADVS.
M.T.SURESHKUMAR
P.R.JAYASANKAR
DARSAN SOMANATH
N.MANU THAMPI
MANJUSHA K
SREELAKSHMI SABU
B.SHAMNAD

¶8

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶9

STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031
BY
P G MANU – SR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶10

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
14.03.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

¶11

¶12

BAIL APPL. No. 608 of 2023

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

Dated this the 14^th day of March, 2023

¶15

This is an application for anticipatory bail filed by the 1^st

¶16

accused in Crime No. 60/2023 of Pathanapuram Police Station.

¶17

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

¶18

I have perused the relevant documents placed by the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶19

The prosecution case is that, at about 5 pm on 12-012023, when the defacto complainant was riding on his bullet motorcycle bearing registration No. KL 03 AC 5963, the accused person, who came in a car from the opposite side, attempted to hit against the bullet, soon then the defacto complainant stopped the bullet. Thereafter, he noticed that Shinumon, Ajay, Allan Shahul and other persons identified by

¶20

¶21

BAIL APPL. No. 608 of 2023

¶22

sight, abused and attacked the defacto complainant on questioning his involvement against the members of the SFI and DYFI. The specific allegation is that, Midhunn Pattazhi, beat on the shoulder of the defacto complainant by using an iron rod and he fell down. Thereafter, the petitioner herein caught hold on his shoulder and facilitated assault at the instance of Midhun and accordingly, Midhun again beat on his left leg and he sustained injuries. The use of stone by one Ajay is the further allegation. On recording the statement of the injured, crime was registered alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 341, 323, 324, 308 and 506 (ii) r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, by the accused.

¶23

The learned counsel for the petitioner who pressed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, submitted that, the overt acts against the petitioner is much less and the prosecution has no case that he did use any weapon to attack

¶24

¶25

BAIL APPL. No. 608 of 2023

¶26

the defacto complainant. He also pointed out that, even though, Midhun, alleged to have used an iron rod, the injuries sustained to the defacto complainant are not at all serious. Therefore, the prosecution allegation that, the accused herein, committed offence punishable under Section 308 of IPC could not be justified. As such, the petitioner deserves bail, and the petitioner is ready to abide any conditions as a pre-requist to grant pre-arrest bail.

¶27

While opposing the bail, the learned Public Prosecutor highlighted nine crimes prior to this where the petitioner got involved, inclusive of four crimes in quick succession during 2022 itself.

¶28

Antecedents of the petitioner is as extracted hereunder:

¶29

“1. Cr. 1409/2019 u/s 143, 147, 148 149 323, 324, 332, 353 IPC & 3(2) (e), 4 of PDPP Act.

¶30

Cr.1418/2019, u/s 143, 147, 148, 149, 294(b), 427, 447, 506 IPC.

¶31

BAIL APPL. No. 608 of 2023

¶32

¶33

Cr. 1608/2020, u/s 143,147,269, 283 IPC & 118(e) of KP Act anad 5 of KEDO

¶34

4.Cr. 508/2022, 143, 147, 149, 188, 283 IPC

¶35

Cr 705/2022 u/s 143, 147, 149, 188, 2836 IPC

¶36

Cr. 714/2022 U/S 143, 147, 149, 188, 283 IPC

¶37

Cr. 2169/2019 u/s 323, 324, 427, 506, 34 IPC

¶38

Cr. 1890/2020 u/s 143, 147, 149, 188, 269, 283, IPC & 118 (e) of KP Act and 5 of KEDO

¶39

Cr. 48/2022 u/s 143, 147, 149, 188, 269, 283 IPC & 118(e) of KP Act and 5 of KEDO”

¶40

The overacts in this case, against the petitioner is

¶41

confined without use of any weapon and there is no allegation for the prosecution to the effect that the accused herein assaulted the defacto complainant with intention to commit culpable homicide not amounting to murder, being part of an unlawful assembly,armed with deadly weapons to canvass offences under Section 143 series and 145 of IPC. It is relevant to note further that the finding after physical examination of the defacto complainant noted in the Wound

¶42

¶43

BAIL APPL. No. 608 of 2023

¶44

Certificate is “No external injuries”. However, symptoms of contusion over left side of face, left tamporal region etc.., noted there after. But, those injuries also trivial in nature. Since, the complicy of the petitioner is much less, ignoring his criminal antecedents, he can be enlarged on anticipatory bail, though his involvement in multiple crimes is noted with extreme displeasure and anxiety.

¶45

Accordingly, the petition stands allowed and the petitioner is enlarged on bail, on the following conditions:

¶46

i. The petitioner shall surrender before the Investigating Officer within ten days from today and on such surrender, the Investigating Officer can question the petitioner. In the event of his arrest, the Investigating Officer shall produce the petitioner before the jurisdictional court on the date of arrest itself.

¶47

ii. On such production, the jurisdictional court shall release the petitioner on bail, on executing bond for Rs.30,000/(Rupees thirty thousand only) by himself and by two solvent sureties, each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court.

¶48

BAIL APPL. No. 608 of 2023

¶49

¶50

iii. The petitioner shall co-operate with investigation and shall be made available for interrogation and for the purpose of investigation, as and when the Investigating Officer directs so.

¶51

iv. The petitioner, shall not, intimidate the witnesses or interfere with the investigation in any manner.

¶52

v. The petitioner shall meet the Investigating Officer on all Mondays in between 10.00 am to 1.00 pm for a period of six weeks.

¶53

vi. The petitioner shall not commit any offence during currency of this bail and any such involvement alone is a reason to cancel the bail hereby granted.

¶54

Sd/-

¶55

A. BADHARUDEEN JUDGE

¶56

mtk

Shinumon a v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shinumon a 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

Rajesh K B Vs State of Kerala

Rajesh K B Vs State of Kerala

Muhammed Faisal Vs State of Kerala

Baby Vs State of Kerala

Favas K.P Vs State of Kerala

Rajmohan Vs State of Kerala