Allowed

Arunlal S.V. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC22 Mar 2023Bail Appl./719/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted anticipatory bail to two accused in a case involving alleged use of a weapon and assault. The court imposed conditions including surrender for investigation and cooperation in recovery of the alleged weapon.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners released on anticipatory bail subject to surrender for investigation within ten days, execution of bond for Rs.30,000 each with two sureties, and conditions preventing interference with wi

Arunlal S.V. Vs State of Kerala — Anticipatory Bail | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 22^ND DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 1ST CHAITHRA, 1945

¶5

BAIL APPL. NO. 719 OF 2023

¶6

CRIME NO.29/2023 OF VIZHINJAM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 AND 2:

¶8

1 ARUNLAL S.V. AGED 43 YEARS S/O. SOMAN K, LAL BHAVAN, KAKKAKUZHI, VENNIYOOR, NELLIVILA P.O., VENGANOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695523 2 SOMAN K. AGED 71 YEARS S/O. KUTTAN NADAR, LAL BHAVAN, KAKKAKUZHI, VENNIYOOR, NELLIVILA P.O., VENGANOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695523 BY ADVS. SAIJO HASSAN BENOJ C AUGUSTIN RAFEEK. V.K. U.M.HASSAN AATHIRA SUNNY BINCY JOB NEEMA NEERACKAL AMBADI DINESH L.K.

¶9

RESPONDENT/STATE:

¶10

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

¶11

BY SR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.T V NEEMA

¶12

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.03.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

BAIL APPL. NO. 719 OF 2023 2

¶14

ORDER

¶15

Dated this the 22^nd day of March, 2023

¶16

Accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.29/2023 of Vizhinjam

¶17

Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, seek the relief of anticipatory bail in this petition, filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶18

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

¶19

I have perused the case diary materials as such, along with the wound certificate of the injured.

¶20

The case of the prosecution is that, at 8.00 a.m. on 3.1.2023, when the de facto complainant reached to question construction of compound wall, adjoining the property of the de facto complainant, the 2^nd accused abused him. Thereafter, accused Nos.2 and 3 wrongfully restrained him. While so, the 1^st accused brandished a knife against the de facto complainant and the same caused fracture to his incisor. On this premise,

¶21

BAIL APPL. NO. 719 OF 2023 3

¶22

prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 326 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶23

The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that, the place of occurrence is in front of the house of the accused and the allegations are false. According to him, in fact, the de facto complainant and his henchmen, criminally trespassed upon the courtyard of the house of the petitioners and assaulted the wife of the 2^nd petitioner. It is submitted further that, Annexure A2 FIR was registered, recording the statement of the wife of the 2^nd petitioner and in the said crime, the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 452, 323, 324 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned counsel would point out further that, there is no likelihood of causing fracture to incisor due to brandishing of a knife and in fact, the de facto complainant fell down during scuffle occurred at the courtyard of the house of the accused and he sustained injuries so. Therefore, the petitioners may be released on anticipatory bail and they are ready to be abide by any conditions, as a pre-requisite for grant of anticipatory bail.

¶24

BAIL APPL. NO. 719 OF 2023 4

¶25

The learned Public Prosecutor opposed bail, on the submission that the 1^st accused used a knife and in consequence thereof, the de facto complainant sustained dental fracture. Therefore, arrest and custodial interrogation of the petitioners are necessary.

¶26

On perusal of the case diary along with Annexure A2, case and counter case, seen registered, alleging commission of offences as stated hereinabove. In the copy of the wound certificate, 'fractal mobile distal fragment multiple missing teeth' is the observation. Thus, the allegation of the prosecution as to fracture to one of the incisors of the de facto complainant, could be seen, prima facie. However, it appears that, in this occurrence, case and counter were registered and in cases involving case and counter, the truth of the matter is a matter of evidence during trial.

¶27

Having noticed the factual events of the case, I am inclined to allow this petition, with direction to the petitioners to concede the jurisdiction of the Investigating Officer for the purpose of interrogation and investigation. The 1^st accused/1^st petitioner is directed to co-operate with the investigation, not

¶28

BAIL APPL. NO. 719 OF 2023 5

¶29

only in the matter of interrogation, but in the matter of recovery of the knife, alleged to be used by him, during the deemed custody, after his surrender as ordered hererunder:

¶30

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed and the petitioners are released on anticipatory bail, by imposing the following conditions:

¶31

i. The petitioners shall surrender before the Investigating Officer within ten days from today and on such surrender, the Investigating Officer can question the petitioners and recover the knife at the instance of the 1^st petitioner, during deemed custody after surrender. In the event of their arrest, the Investigating Officer shall produce the petitioners before the jurisdictional court on the date of arrest itself.

¶32

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

¶33

iii. The petitioners shall co-operate with investigation and shall be made available for interrogation and

¶34

BAIL APPL. NO. 719 OF 2023 6

¶35

for the purpose of investigation, as and when the Investigating Officer directs so.

¶36

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

¶37

v. The petitioners 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

Arunlal S.V. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arunlal S.V. 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

Ajmal K Ummer Vs State of Kerala

Siddique Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Vahid Vs State of Kerala

Ajith Vs State of Kerala

Althaf Vs State of Kerala

Prabhakara Kalluraya Vs State of Kerala