Allowed

Shine.M. Das v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC28 Mar 2023Bail Appl./663/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed the petitioner's bail application under Section 438 CrPC. Despite allegations of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, the court noted injuries were likely caused by the first accused. Pending full investigation and cooperation, the petitioner was granted bail with sureties and strict conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on bail on Rs. 30,000 bond by himself and two sureties, subject to surrender, cooperation, and prohibitions against interference or new offences.

Shine.M. Das Vs State of Kerala — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 28^TH DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 7TH CHAITHRA, 1945

¶5

BAIL APPL. NO. 663 OF 2023

¶6

CRIME NO.1231/2022 OF VILAPPILSSALA POLICE STATION,

¶7

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶8

PETITIONER/ACCUSED (A3):

¶9

SHINE.M. DAS AGED 40 YEARS, S/O SELVADAS, MERCY BHAVAN, MARATHAKIDI, URIYAKODE.P.O., PERUMKULAM, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695575 BY ADVS. R.T.PRADEEP M.BINDUDAS K.C.HARISH

¶10

RESPONDENT/STATE:

¶11

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

¶12

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28.03.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

B.A.No. 663 of 2023

ORDER

Dated this the 28^th day of March, 2023

¶17

This is a petition filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking pre-arrest bail and the petitioner is the 3^rd accused in crime No.1231/2022 of Vilappilsala Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram.

¶18

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the relevant materials form part of the case diary along with the wound certificate produced by the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶19

The prosecution case is that, at about 14.30 hours on 25.12.2022, accused Nos.1 to 3 abused and assaulted the defacto complainant while attempting to commit culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Though the defacto complainant sustained serious injuries, he survived. Recording the statement of the defacto complainant, crime alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 308, 323, 324, 326 r/w 34 of IPC was registered and is on investigation.

¶20

B.A.No. 663 of 2023

¶21

¶22

While pursuing the relief of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, who is arrayed as 3^rd accused in this crime, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and the allegations are false. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that, the defacto complainant did not sustain any serious injuries and if at all the injuries as noted in the wound certificate were sustained, the same are the outcome of overt acts at the instance of the 1^st accused. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, there is no specific overt acts alleged against the 3^rd accused and he did not cause any serious injury to the defacto complainant. Therefore, the petitioner may be released on anticipatory bail and he is ready to co-operate with the investigation is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶23

The learned Public opposed grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. She also produced copies of wound certificates and the FIS showing the overt acts at the instance of the accused. In the copy of wound certificate, lacerated wound on scalp, right and left index fingers are noted.

¶24

On perusal of the wound certificate, nothing stated

¶25

B.A.No. 663 of 2023

¶26

¶27

therein to justify incorporation of Section 326 of IPC. The overt acts against the petitioner is that, he also beat the defacto complainant by using an iron pipe. But the wound certificate is suggestive of the fact that, the injuries sustained by the defacto complainant are the outcome of the overt acts at the instance of the 1^st accused. Since it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, petitioner is ready to co-operate with the investigation and to recover the iron pipe at his instance, I am inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail, reading his complicity something less than that of the other accused.

¶28

Therefore, this petition stands allowed. The petitioner is enlarged on bail on conditions:

¶29

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, record his statement and recover the iron pipe alleged to be used by the petitioner, as conceded. In the event of his arrest, the Investigating Officer shall produce the petitioner before the Jurisdictional Court on the date of arrest

B.A.No. 663 of 2023

itself.

ii. On such production, Jurisdictional Court shall

¶34

release the petitioner on bail, on executing bond for Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty thousand) each, by himself and by two sureties, each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Jurisdictional Court.

¶35

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.

¶36

iv. The petitioner, shall not, intimidate the

¶37

witnesses or interfere with the investigation in any manner.

¶38

v. The petitioner shall not commit any offence

¶39

during currency of this bail and any such involvement is a reason to cancel the bail hereby granted.

¶40

A. BADHARUDEEN JUDGE

¶41

Sd/-

¶42

Shine.M. Das v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shine.M. Das 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

Nagaraj Kumaran Vs State of Kerala

Harikrishnan.J.P, Vs State of Kerala

V.M. Rajesh, Vs State of Kerala

Arun V.P. Vs State of Kerala

Girijan Vs State of Kerala

Jayesh.P Vs State of Kerala