Allowed

Baiju K.T v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC9 Feb 2023Bail Appl./870/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed a bail application filed by two accused persons charged with assault and grievous hurt. Despite their antecedents invoking strict bail standards, the court ordered release after imposing stringent bond conditions, mandatory reporting to the IO, and a specific clause linking one accused's release to the expiry of pending proceedings under the KAA(P)A.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners released on bail on Rs.1,00,000 bond with strict conditions, including reporting to the Investigating Officer every Tuesday for two months.

Baiju K.T Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023 / 20TH MAGHA, 1944
BAIL APPL. NO. 870 OF 2023

¶5

CRIME NO.1007/2022 OF KURUPPAMPADY POLICE STATION.

¶6

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1&2:

¶7

1BAIJU K.T
AGED 38 YEARS
S/O THANKAPPAN, KANDATHINKARAYIL HOUSE,
UPPUKANDOM KAVALA BHAGOM, AYIROORPADOM KARA,
KOTTAPPADY VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686692
2PRADEEP V.A,
AGED 34 YEARS, S/O AYYAPPAN, VADOTTUMALY HOUSE,
THOLELI KARA, KOTTAPPADY VILLAGE, NOW RESIDING AT
RENTED HOUSE OF POULOSE, KOCHERY HOUSE, IRINGOLE KARA,
PERUMBAVOOR VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683542
BY ADVS.
BINU PAUL
SHINE MATHEWS(VADAKKEKARA)
JEAN ALEX

¶8

RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT:

¶9

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

¶10

2 INSPECTOR OF POLICE KURUPPAMPADY POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN – 683542

¶11

BY SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. P.G.MANU

¶12

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
09.02.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

BAIL APPL. NO. 870 OF 2023 2

¶14

ORDER

¶15

Dated this the 9^th day of February, 2023

¶16

This is an application for regular bail, filed by accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.1007/2022 of Kuruppampady Police Station.

¶17

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

¶18

The prosecution case is that, at 11.30 hrs on 5.12.2022, accused Nos.1 and 2 herein, who hired an Autorickshaw to reach at Vattolipady, assaulted the de facto complainant when the de facto complainant demanded auto fare. The further allegation is that, when the accused refused to give the auto fare, the de facto complainant took their photographs and infuriated by the said overt act, the petitioners herein assaulted the de facto complainant with intention to murder him. The specific allegation against the 1^st accused is that, he had caused stab injuries on the right wrist, right thigh and left side of the neck of the de facto complainant, though he survived. This is the base, on which, crime was registered alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 341,

¶19

BAIL APPL. NO. 870 OF 2023 3

¶20

323, 324, 307 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶21

The learned counsel for the petitioners highlighted the progress

¶22

of investigation and prolonged custody of the petitioners from 6.12.2022, while pressing for grant of bail to the petitioners. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the investigation has substantially improved and therefore, further custody of the petitioners for the purpose of investigation, is not necessary. Accordingly, he pressed for release of the petitioners on bail.

¶23

Whereas, the learned Public Prosecutor zealously opposed grant of bail to the petitioners specifically on two grounds. The first point argued by the learned Public Prosecutor is that, the 1^st and 2^nd accused, who are habitual offenders, having involvement in multiple crimes, assaulted and caused serious injuries to the de facto complainant, an autorickshaw driver, when he demanded the auto fare, after alighting them at Vattolipady, without any reasons. Therefore, the prosecution is well made out and in such a case, bail cannot be granted, during the midst of investigation. The second point argued is that, the petitioners have no respect to law and the

¶24

1^st petitioner has involvement in 14 crimes and the 2^nd petitioner has involvement in 5 crimes, Therefore, habitual offenders, if released on bail,

¶25

BAIL APPL. NO. 870 OF 2023 4

¶26

they would repeat the similar offences and would be a threat to the society,

¶27

as a whole.

¶28

On perusal of the case diary, prosecution case is well made out

¶29

not only by the statements of the witnesses, but also from the medical records in the form of wound certificate, issued from the Taluk Headquarters Hospital, Perumbavoor, dated 6.12.2022, wherein, multiple injuries on the left neck 2x.5x.5, injury on the wrist 2x.5x.5 and injury on the thigh 3x4, were noted, apart from contusion and abrasion on the neck.

¶30

On perusal of the antecedents of the petitioners, they have

¶31

involved in the following crimes:

¶32

1 st accused/1 st petitioner

¶33

1. Kottappady PS Crime.409/2020 U/s 8(1)(2), 55 (g) of Abkari Act
2. “ Crime.11/2014 U/s 279 IPC & 185 MV Act 66
3. “ Crime.47/2014 U/s 279 IPC & 185 MV Act
4. “ Crime.477/2014 U/s 15(C ) Abkari Act
5. “ Crime.587/2014 U/s 118(a) KP Act
6. “ Crime.962/2014 U/s 279 IPC & 185 MV Act
7. “ Crime.619/2015 U/s 118(a) KP Act 66
8. “ Crime.787/2016 U/s 279 IPC & 185 MV Act
9. “ Crime.965/2016 U/s 118(a) KP Act
10. “ Crime.357/2017 U/s 6(b) r/w 24 COTPA Act
11. “ Crime.70/2018 U/s 118(a) KP Act
12. “ Crime.174/2018 U/s 118(a) KP Act
13. “ Crime.540/2019 U/s 118(a) KP Act
14. Kothamanagalam PS Crime 384/2018 U/s 118(a) KP Act

¶34

2 nd accused/2 nd petitioner

¶35

1. Kottappady PS Crime.409/2020 U/s 8(1)(2), 55 (g) of Abkari Act

¶36

2. Kuruppamapdy PS Crime. 112/2020 U/s 118(a) KP Act

¶37

BAIL APPL. NO. 870 OF 2023 5

¶38

3. “ Crime. 1312/2021 U/s 307, 294(b) IPC 4. “ Crime.247/2022 U/s 323, 324 IPC 5. “ Crime.549/2022 U/s 498(A) IPC

¶39

Reading the crimes against the 1^st petitioner, excluding these crimes, all other crimes are pertaining to allegation of commission of offence punishable under Sections 279 of IPC, 185 of MV Act and 118 of KP Act and one crime is under Section 6(b) r/w 24 COTPA Act. He had involved in a crime during 2020 under Section 8(1)(2), 55 (g) of Abkari Act. The 2^nd accused involved in 5 crimes and one among them is under Section 307 of the IPC. It is submitted that the 2^nd accused is facing the Kerala Anti-social Activities Prevention Act (for short ‘the KAA(P)A’ hereinafter) proceeding.

¶40

Though the continuous involvement of the petitioners in other crimes, which would aggravate their right to get regular bail, having considered the custody of the petitioners from 6.12.2022, I am inclined to release the petitioners on bail, with a specific direction to the petitioners not to involve or indulge in any other offence during the currency of bail hereby granted and any such event, if reported or came to the notice of this court, the same itself shall be a reason to cancel the bail hereby granted. It is specifically made clear that, grant of bail to the 2^nd petitioner/2^nd accused

¶41

BAIL APPL. NO. 870 OF 2023 6

¶42

herein will take effect only after his detention under the KAA(P)A expires, as per law.

¶43

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

¶44

i. The petitioners shall be released on bail on their executing bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) each by themselves and with two solvent sureties, each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court concerned.

¶45

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

¶46

iii. The petitioners shall not, directly or indirectly, make any 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.

¶47

iv. The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when directed and they shall meet the Investigating Officer on every Tuesday in between 9.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. for a period of two months from the date of release on bail. If this condition is vitiated, the same shall be a reason to cancel the bail hereby granted.

¶48

v. The petitioners shall surrender their passports before the jurisdictional court on the date of execution of the bail bonds

¶49

BAIL APPL. NO. 870 OF 2023 7

¶50

or within 7 days therefrom. If the petitioners have no passports, they shall file affidavits to that effect.

Sd/-

A. BADHARUDEEN JUDGE

//TRUE COPY//

PA TO JUDGE

Baiju K.T v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baiju K.T 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

Dhillan Vs State of Kerala

Subrahmania Rao Vs State of Kerala

Jayesh P. J. Vs State of Kerala

Mohammed Hassan K. a. Vs State of Kerala

Saju Sony Vs State of Kerala

Muhammed Haneef Vs State of Kerala