Partly allowed

Rejin R.L v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC10 Feb 2023Bail Appl./629/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bail application sought pre-arrest bail under Section 438 CrPC. The court dismissed the plea for the first accused, alleging use of a sword. It allowed bail for the second and third accused, involving IPC offences and one other crime, on strict conditions regarding cooperation and appearance.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed to petitioners 2 and 3 subject to conditions; bail plea of petitioner 1 dismissed.

Rejin R.L 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

FRIDAY, THE 10^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023 / 21ST MAGHA, 1944

¶5

BAIL APPL. NO. 629 OF 2023

¶6

CRIME NO.1033/2022 OF MARANALLOR POLICE STATION,

¶7

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶8

PETITIONERS/A1, A3 & A4:

¶9

1 REJIN AGED 26 YEARS, S/O RAJENDRAN, RAJENDRAVILASAM, ARUVIKARA, KOOVALASSERY PO THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695512

¶10

2 SANALKUMAR AGED 22 YEARS, S/O CHANDRAN, VADAKEKARA PUTHEN VEEDU, PULIYARATHALAKAL, KODENNOOR, KOOVALASSERY PO PIN - 695512 3 MAHAESH AGED 29 YEARS, S/O USHA, PULIYERTHALA, MELEPUTHANVEEDU, KUVALASSERY, MARANALLOOR PO,- 695512 BY ADV AMJATH A.R

¶11

RESPONDENT/STATE:

¶12

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 BY ADV PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.T.V. NEEMA, SR.PP

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.02.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

B.A.No. 629 of 2023

ORDER

Dated this the 10^th day of February, 2023

¶18

This is a petition filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking pre-arrest bail and the petitioners are accused Nos. 1, 3 and 4 in crime No. 1033/2022 of Maranalloor Police Station.

¶19

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the relevant materials forming part of the case diary produced by the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶20

The prosecution allegation is that, at 19.45 hours on 28.12.2022, the accused herein formed into unlawful assembly after sharing common intention that they are all members of the said assembly, armed with deadly weapons and manhandled the defacto complainant with intention to do away him. Although, the defacto complainant survived, he sustained serious injuries. Accordingly, the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 149, 294(b), 323, 324, 308 of IPC and 27 of Arms Act.

¶21

The learned counsel for the petitioners highlighted

¶22

B.A.No. 629 of 2023

¶23

¶24

innocence of the petitioners, while canvasing anticipatory bail. Further, he submitted that, the petitioners are students. The learned counsel for the petitioners also pointed out that, no specific allegation that accused Nos. 3 to 6 used any weapon and the allegation is that they have beaten and kicked the defacto complainant by their hands and legs. The specific allegation is that, the 1^st accused used a sword to cause cut injury and the 2^nd accused used an iron rod to beat the defacto complainant.

¶25

The learned Public Prosecutor opposed grant of bail and pointed out the involvement of the 1^st and 3^rd accused in two more crimes while pointing out the necessity of arrest, custodial interrogation and recovery of weapons used by the petitioners, to accomplish meaningful investigation.

¶26

On perusal of the case diary, specific allegation as to use of sword and iron rod respectively by the 1^st and 2^nd accused could be gathered. Therefore, their arrest, custodial interrogation and recovery of weapons used by them are necessary to accomplish meaningful investigation as pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor. Hence, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the 1^st petitioner/ 1^st accused.

¶27

The complicity of the other accused is less and the prosecution has no case that, they have used any weapon to

¶28

B.A.No. 629 of 2023

¶29

¶30

assault the defacto complainant. It is true that, involvement of the 3^rd accused in another crime, where offence punishable under Section 373 of IPC is also reported. In the given facts of the case, when the petitioners 2 and 3/accused Nos. 3 and 4 offer readyness to co-operate with the investigation, they are liable to be released on anticipatory bail on conditions.

¶31

In the result, bail plea at the instance of the 1^st petitioner/ 1^st accused stands dismissed. The petition at the instance of petitioners 2 and 3 stands allowed. The petitioners 2 and 3/accused Nos. 3 and 4 are enlarged on bail on conditions:

¶32

i. The petitioners 2 and 3/accused Nos. 3 and 4 shall surrender before the Investigating Officer within ten days from today and on such surrender, the Investigating Officer can question petitioners 2 and 3/ accused Nos. 3 and 4 and record their statements, if necessary. In the event of their arrest, the Investigating Officer shall produce them before the Jurisdictional Court on the date of surrender itself.

¶33

ii. On such production, Jurisdictional Court shall release petitioners 2 and 3/accused Nos. 3 and 4 on bail, on executing bond for Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty

¶34

B.A.No. 629 of 2023

¶35

¶36

thousand) each, by them and by two sureties, each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Jurisdictional Court.

¶37

iii. The petitioners 2 and 3/accused Nos. 3 and 4 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. They shall meet the Investigating Officer for a period of one month on every day in between 9.00 am to 1.00 pm, without fail.

¶38

iv. The petitioners 2 and 3/accused Nos. 3 and 4, shall not, intimidate the witnesses or interfere with the investigation in any manner.

¶39

v. The petitioners 2 and 3/accused Nos. 3 and 4

¶40

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

¶41

Sd/-

¶42

A. BADHARUDEEN JUDGE

¶43

Rejin R.L v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rejin R.L 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 Hassan K. a. Vs State of Kerala

Saju Sony Vs State of Kerala

Baiju K.T Vs State of Kerala

Zuhara Vs State of Kerala

Rajesh Vs State of Kerala

Manjesh Vs State of Kerala