Allowed

Rahul S C v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC15 Feb 2023Bail Appl./65/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge allowed an application for anticipatory bail filed by the 4th accused in a criminal case alleging assault with intent to commit murder. The court granted bail subject to conditions including surrender for interrogation.

What did the court decide?

The bail application is allowed; the petitioner is enlarged on bail subject to conditions for surrender, interrogation, and cooperation with investigation.

Rahul S C 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

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023 / 26TH MAGHA, 1944

¶5

BAIL APPL. NO. 65 OF 2023

¶6

CRIME NO.1023 OF 2022 OF KEEZHVAIPUR POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA

¶7

PETITIONER/4TH ACCUSED

¶8

RAHUL S C
AGED 23 YEARS, S/O.LATE SABU C C,
CHUZHAKUNNOOR KALAYIL, VENNIKULAM P.O.,
VAALANKARA MURI, MALLAPPALLY TALUK, PURAMATTAM VILLAGE,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689543
BY ADVS.
VINOY VARGHESE KALLUMOOTTILL
ROJA R.

¶9

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS/STATE:

¶10

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

¶11

2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER KEEZHVAIPUR POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN – 689587

¶12

BY SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.T.V.NEEMA

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
15.02.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

BAIL APPL. NO. 65 OF 2023 2

¶15

ORDER

¶16

Dated this the 15^th day of February, 2023.

¶17

This is an application for anticipatory bail, filed by the 4^th accused in Crime No.1023 of 2022 of Keezhvaipur Police Station, Pathanamthitta.

¶18

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

¶19

I have perused the Case Diary as such, produced by the learned

¶20

Public Prosecutor.

¶21

The prosecution case is that, at 18 hrs on 25.12.2022, the accused herein wrongfully restrained the defacto complainant near the bypass at Mallappally-Anikkadu road and they assaulted the defacto complainant, by using sticks and stones, with intention to commit murder. On this premise, prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 341, 324, 506(ii), 307 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶22

While pressing for pre-arrest bail to the petitioner, who is the 4^th

¶23

accused, the learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that, though there is

¶24

BAIL APPL. NO. 65 OF 2023 3

¶25

allegation that accused Nos.1 to 4 were present at the time of initial occurrence, the attack against the injured is one during the subsequent occurrence, narrated in the First Information Statement. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the persons, who attacked the de facto complainant and caused injuries during the subsequent occurrence, are accused Nos.1 and 2 and the petitioner was not even at the scene of occurrence, at the time of the second incident.

¶26

The learned Public Prosecutor would submit that accused Nos.1 and 2, while giving confession statements, disclosed that the petitioner also was along with others. Thus, the petitioner also has involvement in this occurrence, where serious offences are alleged to be committed.

¶27

On perusal of the case diary, it appears that the de facto complainant sustained injuries, as could be read out from the copy of discharge card form part of the case diary. The injuries are; ‘abberated wound in abdomen’ and ‘bleeding from left ear’. Since the petitioner’s role in the occurrence is something less than that of the 1^st and 2^nd accused and the prosecution has no case that he had used any weapon, the petitioner can be released on anticipatory bail, on conditions and with specific direction to subject himself for interrogation for the purpose of investigation.

¶28

BAIL APPL. NO. 65 OF 2023 4

¶29

Accordingly, the bail application stands allowed and the petitioner can be

¶30

enlarged on bail, on the following conditions:

¶31

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.

¶32

ii. On such production, 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.

¶33

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.

¶34

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

¶35

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

Sd/-

A. BADHARUDEEN JUDGE

//TRUE COPY//

PA TO JUDGE

Rahul S C v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul S C 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

Muhammed Suhas, Vs State of Kerala

Shifas A.M Vs State of Kerala

Saidali @, Shemi Vs State of Kerala

Pranav Suresh Vs State of Kerala

Shiju Vs the Detective Inspector

Iddeenkunhi Vs State of Kerala