Allowed

Sajin v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC23 Feb 2023Bail Appl./755/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed a bail application filed by the first accused in a murder attempt case. The court considered the petitioner's antecedents and the investigation progress before granting bail on specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on bail for Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties subject to five specific conditions regarding witness interaction and investigation cooperation.

Sajin Vs State of Kerala — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
THURSDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023 / 4TH PHALGUNA, 1944

¶4

BAIL APPL. NO. 755 OF 2023

¶5

CRIME NO.85/2023 OF ARUVIKKARA POLIE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶6

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶7

SAJIN
AGED 28 YEARS
S/O STEPHAN, SIBIN COTTAGE, CHARUVILA VEEDU
PATHIRIYODU, VELLOORKONAM ARUVIKKARA VILLAGE,
NEDUMANGAD TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 695541
BY ADVS.
P.BAJI RAVEENDRAN
GOVIND N.S.

¶8

RESPONDENT/STATE:

¶9

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

¶10

BY SR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.T V NEEMA

¶11

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
23.02.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶12

BAIL APPL. NO. 755 OF 2023 2

¶13

ORDER

¶14

Dated this the 23^rd day of February, 2023.

¶15

This is an application for regular bail, filed by the 1^st accused in Crime No.85/2023 of Aruvikkara Polie Station, Thiruvananthapuram, where the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 323, 324, 506(ii), 307 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶16

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

¶17

I have perused the case diary materials placed by the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶18

The prosecution allegation is that, at 5.30 p.m. on 15.1.2023, the 2^nd accused used abusive words and pelted stone towards the de facto complainant and his men and also the 1^st accused beat on the left side of his

¶19

body with an iron pipe, in their joint attempt, to commit murder of the de facto complainant. The immediate cause for such an occurrence is stated in the

¶20

report of the Investigating Officer is, dispute arose out of expansion of the

¶21

footpath at Pathiriyodu.

¶22

BAIL APPL. NO. 755 OF 2023 3

¶23

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has been in custody for the last 39 days, since his arrest was recorded on 16.1.2023. According to him, when the de facto complainant and others attempted to widen the footpath, by encroaching upon the property of the 1^st accused and when the same was resisted, there occurred a scuffle between them. It is pointed out that, though the petitioner is having criminal antecedents, those are of the year 2012 and 2013 and now, the occurrence is the outcome of immediate response, aggrieved by encroachment in the property of the petitioner.

¶24

The learned Public Prosecutor opposed bail and pointed out the

¶25

seriousness of the offences as well as the petitioner’s involvement in the following crimes:

¶26

Aruvikkara PS Cr. 52/2012-U/S-308 IPC,

¶27

2. Aruvikkara PS Cr. 113/2013 U/S- 341,294(b), 323, 324, 427, & 34 IPC, 3. Aruvikkara PS Cr. 359/2013 -U/S-294(b), 452, 427 & 506 (ii) IPC.

¶28

On perusal of the case diary and the report submitted by the

¶29

Investigating Officer, it is discernible that the occurrence was the outcome of an attempt made by the de facto complainant and others, to widen the footpath, by encroaching upon the property of the 1^st accused. It is true that

¶30

BAIL APPL. NO. 755 OF 2023 4

¶31

there is allegation for the prosecution that the 1^st accused beat the de facto complainant and thereby, the de facto complainant sustained injuries on spleen with internal bleeding. It is noted that the criminal antecedents against the petitioner herein, are during the year 2012 and 2013 and no involvement of the petitioner in crimes could be found after 2013, till this occurrence.

¶32

In consideration of the petitioner’s custody from 16.1.2023 and substantive progress of the investigation, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, on conditions.

¶33

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed and the petitioner can be enlarged on bail on the following conditions:

¶34

i. The petitioner shall be released on bail on his executing bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with two solvent sureties, each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court concerned.

¶35

ii. The petitioner shall not intimidate the witnesses or tamper with evidence. He shall co-operate with the investigation and shall be available for trial.

¶36

iii. The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when directed.

¶37

iv. The petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any

¶38

BAIL APPL. NO. 755 OF 2023 5

¶39

inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of this case, so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer.

¶40

v. The petitioner shall not involve in any other offence during the currency of bail and any such event, if reported or came to the notice of this Court, the same shall be a reason to cancel the bail hereby granted.

Sd/-

A. BADHARUDEEN JUDGE

//TRUE COPY//

PA TO JUDGE

Sajin v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sajin 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

Sarath Vs State of Kerala

Ikramul Haque Vs State of Kerala

John Joseph Mondero Vs State of Kerala

Priyanlal C.P. @ Chinjilu Vs State of Kerala

Balaodra Bonju Babu Vs State of Kerala

Unni @ Ajay B Vs State of Kerala