Partly allowed

Sarath v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC22 Feb 2023Bail Appl./610/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court granted regular bail to two of three accused persons charged with affray and grievous injury, setting bond and surety conditions. The bail application for the third accused with significant criminal antecedents was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed for Petitioners 1 and 2 on bond of Rs.50,000 each with two sureties; Bail application of Petitioner 3 dismissed.

Sarath Vs State of Kerala — Caste Atrocities | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN WEDNESDAY, THE 22^ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023 / 3RD PHALGUNA,

¶4

1944

¶5

BAIL APPL. NO. 610 OF 2023

¶6

CRIME NO.1528/2022 OF EAST KALLADA POLICE STATION,

¶7

KOLLAM

¶8

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 TO 3 :

¶9

1 SARATH

¶10

AGED 27 YEARS S/O SHYLAJAN, MUNAMBATHU HOUSE, EAST KALLADA, EAST KALLADA VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691502

¶11

2 ARUN AGED 27 YEARS S/O PRASAD, THOTTIKKARA CHARUVIL, THEKKEMURI, EAST KALLADA VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691502

¶12

3 AKHIL AGED 32 YEARS S/O ASHOKAN, THOTTIKKARA CHARUVIL, THEKKEMURI, EAST KALLADA VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691502

¶13

BY ADVS. MANU RAMACHANDRAN M.KIRANLAL R.RAJESH (VARKALA) SAMEER M NAIR GEETHU KRISHNAN SAILAKSHMI MENON DHANALAKSHMI V.K.

¶14

RESPONDENTS/STATE & I.O. :

¶15

1 THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031

¶16

B.A.No.610 of 2023

¶17

..2..

¶18

2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, POLICE STATION OF EAST KALLADA, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN – 691502.

¶19

BY SRI.P.G.MANU, SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶20

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15.02.2023, THE COURT ON 22.02.2023 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

B.A.No.610 of 2023

¶22

..3..

¶23

A.BADHARUDEEN, J.

¶24

B.A.No.610 of 2023

¶25

--------------------------------------------------------

¶26

Dated this the 22^nd day of February, 2023

¶27

O R D E R

¶28

This is an application for regular bail filed

¶29

under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, by

¶30

the petitioners who are accused in Crime No.1528 of 2022 of East Kallada Police Station, Kollam.

¶31

Heard the learned counsel for the

¶32

petitioners as also the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶33

I have perused the relevant materials

¶34

forming part of the case diary produced by the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶35

The prosecution allegation is that, at

¶36

B.A.No.610 of 2023

¶37

..4..

¶38

10.45 p.m. on 24.12.2022, the accused persons, after sharing common intention, formed into unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons, wrongfully restrained the defacto complainant with intention to commit culpable homicide at the parking ground of Kallada bar and uttered obscene words against him. The specific allegation is that the first accused beat the defacto complainant on his face by using an 'idivala' and the same caused fracture on his nasal bone. The allegation against the other accused is that, they also assisted the first accused in his attempt by kicking and fisting the defacto complainant. Pursuant to the occurrence, crime registered alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 294(b), 323, 324, 326, 308 r/w 149 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶39

B.A.No.610 of 2023

¶40

..5..

¶41

The learned counsel for the petitioners

¶42

pressed for bail, on the submission that, the petitioners are innocent. He would point out that the petitioners were arrested on 25.12.2022 and they have been in custody since then. Since the investigation has achieved substantial improvement, their custody for the purpose of investigation is not required and therefore, they are liable to be released on bail.

¶43

The learned Public Prosecutor opposed bail, highlighting the seriousness of the offences alleged to be committed by the accused as well as pointing out the primitive stage of investigation. It is pointed out further that the first and third accused are habitual offenders having involvement in multiple crimes and they

¶44

are having Rowdy History Sheets, as per Rule 259(1) of PSO being maintained at East Kallada Police Station. But

¶45

B.A.No.610 of 2023

¶46

..6..

¶47

no antecedents reported insofar as the second accused is concerned.

¶48

In relation to the first accused, Crime No.1099 of 2021 alleging commission of offences

¶49

punishable under Sections 323, 294(b), 324, 308 and 427 of IPC is pointed out. Four antecedents insofar as

¶50

the third accused also is pointed out as under:

¶51

1. Crime No.380/2013, U/S.27 of Arms Act

¶52

1. Cr.970/2013, U/s.160 IPC 3) Cr.1214/14 U/s.323, 324, 294(b), 452, 143, 147 r/w.149 IPC

¶53

1. Cr.530/11, U/s.143, 147, 148, 294(b), 323, 308 r/w 149 IPC of East Kallada PS.

¶54

In this case, the prosecution allegation as

¶55

to commission of the offences is well established prima

¶56

facie, as per the witness statements as well as the

¶57

B.A.No.610 of 2023

¶58

..7..

¶59

medical records forming part of the case diary. It is relevant to note that the defacto complainant sustained comminuted fracture nasal bones, medial wall of right orbit with pneumocephalus and fracture ethmoid with hemosinus and the defacto complainant underwent inpatient treatment for a substantive period. Eventhough the criminal antecedents insofar as the first accused is only one, the third accused is having criminal antecedents as discussed herein above. Therefore, I am

¶60

not inclined to release him on bail at this stage. Therefore, application of the third accused stands dismissed.

¶61

Having noticed the progress of

¶62

investigation and the custody of the first and second accused for the last 58 days, I am inclined to release the first and second accused on bail on conditions and one

¶63

B.A.No.610 of 2023

¶64

..8..

¶65

among the conditions is that the petitioners 1 and 2 shall not commit any offence during currency of this bail and

¶66

any such involvement is a reason to cancel the bail hereby granted.

¶67

Accordingly, the bail application at the instance of the third petitioner/third accused stands dismissed. The bail application at the instance of accused Nos.1 and 2 stands allowed on the following conditions:

¶68

i. The petitioners 1 and 2/accused Nos.1 and

¶69

2 shall be released on bail on their executing bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) each with two solvent sureties, each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the Magistrate court concerned.

¶70

ii. The petitioners 1 and 2 shall not intimidate the witnesses or tamper with evidence. They shall co-operate with the investigation and shall be

B.A.No.610 of 2023

..9..

available for trial.

iii. The petitioners 1 and 2 shall appear before

¶75

the Investigating Officer as and when directed.

¶76

iv. The petitioners 1 and 2 shall not, directly

¶77

or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of this case, so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer.

¶78

v. The petitioners 1 and 2 shall not involve in

¶79

any other offence during the currency of bail and any such event, if reported or came to the notice of this court, the same shall be a reason to cancel the bail hereby granted.

¶80

Sd/- A.BADHARUDEEN, JUDGE

rkj

B.A.No.610 of 2023

..10..

APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 610/2023

¶85

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

¶86

ANNEXURE A1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.1528 OF 2022 OF EAST KALLADA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT ANNEXURE A2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE WOUND CERTIFICATE NO.3985 DATED 24.12.2022 ISSUED TO THE DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT FROM TALUK HOSPITAL, KUNDARA ANNEXURE A3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REMAND REPORT DATED 26.12.2022 IN CRIME NO.1528 OF 2022 OF EAST KALLADA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT ANNEXURE A4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 31.12.2022 IN CRL.M.P NO.3075/2022 OF JFMC, SASTHAMCOTTA ANNEXURE A5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 13.01.2023 IN CRL.M.P.98/2023 OF JFMC, SASTHAMCOTTA

Sarath v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarath 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

Noushad Vs State of Kerala

Laibu K.Sabu Vs State of Kerala

Vishnu Vs State of Kerala

Ikramul Haque Vs State of Kerala

John Joseph Mondero Vs State of Kerala

Nehumath Vs State of Kerala