Allowed

Velayudhan Achari v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC2 Mar 2023Bail Appl./747/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala granted anticipatory bail to three petitioners accused under Sections 294(b), 506, and 308 of IPC. The court held that arrest was not necessary for meaningful investigation and directed surrender within ten days with bond conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petition for anticipatory bail allowed; enlargement granted on bail conditions including surrender within 10 days and execution of bond for Rs. 30,000/- with sureties.

Velayudhan Achari 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

THURSDAY, THE 2^ND DAY OF MARCH 2023/11TH PHALGUNA, 1944

¶5

BAIL APPL. NO.747 OF 2023

¶6

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 3:

¶7

1 VELAYUDHAN ACHARI, AGED 70 YEARS, S/O.GANAPATHY ACHARI, G.V.VIHAR, NADAKKAL CHERRY, KALLUVATHAKKAL VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN – 691579.

¶8

2 VIPIN.V, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.VELAYUDGAN ACHARI, G.V. VIHAR, NADAKKAL CHERRY, KALLUVATHAKKAL VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN – 691579.

¶9

3 RUGMINI AMMAL, AGED 60 YEARS, W/O.VELAYUDHAN ACHARI, G.V VIHAR, NADAKKAL CHERRY, KALLUVATHAKKAL VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN – 691579.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.M.R.SASITH

¶11

RESPONDENT/STATE:

¶12

STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN – 682031.

¶13

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

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 02.03.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

¶15

¶16

B.A. No.747 of 2023

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

Dated, this the 2nd March, 2023

¶19

This is a petition filed under Section 438

¶20

of the Code of Criminal Procedure, by the
petitioners 1 to 3, who are accused Nos.1 to 3
in Crime No.74/2023 of Parippally Police
Station, Kollam, where they alleged to have
committed offences punishable under Sections
294(b), 506 and 308 of Indian Penal Code, and
the petitioners seek anticipatory bail.

¶21

2. Heard the learned counsel for the

¶22

petitioners as well as the learned Public
Prosecutor.

¶23

3.Perused the relevant documents placed
by the learned Public Prosecutor forming part
of the Case Diary and the report of the
Investigating Officer.

¶24

4.The prosecution allegation is that at
about 8:30 a.m. on 12.01.2023, accused Nos.2

¶25

B.A. No.747 of 2023

¶26

¶27

and 3 threatened the defacto complainant, while
they were travelling in a car driven by the 1st
accused. The further allegation is that the
accused then attempted to run over the car
through the road and the body of the defacto
complainant, with intention to commit culpable
homicide. The motive behind this crime is
pendency of a civil case in between them. On
this premise, the crime was registered alleging
commission of the above offences.

¶28

5.The learned counsel for the petitioners
submitted that the entire allegations are
false. According to him, FIR has been
registered on 17.01.2023 even though the
occurrence was on 12.01.2023, without
explaining the delay for a period of 5 days. He
would submit that the 3rddefendant in O.S.

¶29

No.163/2022 pending before the Munsiff
Magistrate, South Paravur, is the defacto-

¶30

B.A. No.747 of 2023

¶31

¶32

complainant in this crime and in the said suit
filed by the 1st petitioner herein, an interim
order of injunction was obtained. Accordingly,
highlighting the absolute innocence of the
petitioners in this case, the learned counsel
pressed for grant of anticipatory bail.

¶33

6.The learned Public Prosecutor opposed
bail. However, in the available materials, no
wound certificate is available. Nothing stated
with regard to the delay in lodging the FIS in
time. It is discernible that the defacto
complainant is the 3rddefendant in O.S.
No.163/2022, against whom an order of interim
injunction is in force. However, the
prosecution allegations would require fair and
effective investigation and the complicity of
the petitioners as of now, is much less.
However, the Investigating Officer can go with
effective investigation to find out the truth

¶34

B.A. No.747 of 2023

¶35

¶36

of the matter.

¶37

7.Having considered the factual aspects
as discussed, I do not think that arrest and
interrogationofthepetitionersare

¶38

necessary, in this case to effectuate
meaningful investigation.

¶39

8.In the result, the anticipatory bail
plea at the instance of the petitioners stand
allowed and they can be enlarged on bail on the
following conditions:

¶40

i. Accused Nos.1 to 3/petitioners
shall surrender before the
Investigating Officer within ten
days from today and on such
surrender,theInvestigating
Officercanquestionthe
petitioners. In the event of
their arrest, the Investigating
Officershallproducethe
petitionersbeforethe
jurisdictional court on the date
of arrest itself.

¶41

ii.Onsuchproduction,the

¶42

B.A. No.747 of 2023

¶43

¶44

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

¶45

iii. Petitioners 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.

¶46

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

¶47

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

¶48

 Sd/-

¶49

A.BADHARUDEEN, JUDGE.

¶50

ww

¶51

B.A. No.747 of 2023

¶52

¶53

APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL.747/2023

¶54

PETITIONER’S ANNEXURES:

¶55

ANNEXURE A1THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR REGISTERED BY
THE 2ND RESPONDENT AS CRIME NO.74/2023
OF PARIPPALLY POLICE STATION.

¶56

ANNEXURE A2THE TRUE COPY OF THE SUIT COMMON ORDER
IN I.A 1/2022 AND I.A 9/2022 IN O.S NO
163/2022.

¶57

ANNEXURE A3THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.
84/2023 OF PARIPPALLY POLICE STATION.

Velayudhan Achari v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Velayudhan Achari 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 Anas Vs State of Kerala

Soman @ Somashekharan Vs State of Kerala

Arun Gopal M.S Vs the State of Kerala

Bipin Sunny Vs State of Kerala

Ramachandran Vs State of Kerala

Sumesh Vs Station House Officer