Allowed

Anu. v.S, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC2 Feb 2024Bail Appl./11320/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two accused in an attempted murder case involving a machete assault sought bail under Section 439 CrPC. Investigation was complete with the final report laid and the case pending committal. The court accepted the petitioners' explanation of their antecedents, found continued detention unnecessary and allowed bail on stringent conditions including periodic reporting to the Investigating Officer.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners released on bail on executing separate bonds of Rs.50,000 each with two solvent sureties, subject to six stringent conditions including weekly reporting and no tampering with evidence.

Anu. v.S, Vs State of Kerala — Quashing and FIR | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 2^ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 13TH MAGHA, 1945

¶5

BAIL APPL. NO. 11320 OF 2023

¶6

CRIME NO.1055/2023 OF PETTA POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 & 2:

¶8

1 ANU. V.S, AGED 25 YEARS S/O. SURESH BABU,PUTHUVAL PUTHEN VEEDU, KUDAVOOR, ANAYARA, KADAKAMPALLY VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695029

¶9

2 ANANTHU SHAJI @ ACHU, AGED 26 YEARS S/O. SHAJI,T.C.76/739, PULIKKAL VEEDU, KUDAVOOR, ANAYARA, KADAKAMPALLY VILLAGE,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695029

¶10

BY ADV SHAJIN S.HAMEED

¶11

RESPONDENT/STATE:

¶12

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

¶13

OTHER PRESENT:

¶14

PP SMT MAYA N

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.02.2024, THE

¶16

COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

BAIL APPL.NO.11320 OF 2023

¶18

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

This application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the accused 1 and 2 in crime No.1055/2023 of the Petta Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, registered against the accused for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Secs.294(b), 324, 341, 307, 506 and 120B r/w. S.34 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioners have been in custody since 26.09.2023.

¶21

The essence of the prosecution case is that: around 16.45 hours on 23.09.2023, while the defacto-complainant and his friend were travelling on the scooter and when they reached a place named Kallummoodu, the accused 1 and 2, in furtherance of their common intention to murder the defacto-complainant and his friend and out of their previous animosity, the third accused stopped the scooter, and the first accused gave a machete to the second accused, and

¶22

BAIL APPL.NO.11320 OF 2023

¶23

¶24

they abused the defacto-complainant and the second accused slashed the head of the defacto-complainant and his friend. Thereafter, the accused 1 and 2 alternately cut and injured the defacto-complainant on his left leg and he fell on the ground. The defacto-complainant also sustained injuries on the head and leg. The third accused shouted to murder them. Thereafter, the accused 1 and 2 alighted the scooter and left the scene along with the third accused. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences.

¶25

Heard; Sri.Shajin S. Hameed, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Smt. Maya M.N., the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent.

¶26

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent of the accusations levelled against them. The petitioners have been falsely implicated in the crime by the police for the reasons only known to the Investigating Officer. The defactocomplainant and his friend are known rowdies of the area. The petitioners have been in judicial custody since

¶27

¶28

BAIL APPL.NO.11320 OF 2023

¶29

26.09.2023. The investigation in the case is complete and final report has been laid. The recovery has been effected. The petitioners' continued detention is unnecessary. The petitioners are willing to cooperate with the Investigating Officer and also abide by any stringent condition that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, the application may be allowed.

¶30

The learned Public Prosecutor strenuously opposed the application. She submitted that the petitioners are persons with criminal antecedents. The Investigating Officer has filed a bail objection report, inter alia, contending that, there are five cases registered against the first petitioner and three cases against the second petitioner. However, she has conceded to the fact that the petitioners had surrendered before the jurisdictional court and were remanded to judicial custody on 26.09.2023. The petitioners were given in police custody on 03.10.2023. The recovery has been effected and final report has been laid. The case is pending committal as C.P. 41/2023. If the petitioners are let off on bail, due to

¶31

BAIL APPL.NO.11320 OF 2023

¶32

¶33

their criminal antecedents, there is every likelihood of them causing breach of peace in the locality. They also may threaten the witnesses, tamper with the evidence and flee from justice. Hence, the application may be dismissed.

¶34

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners drew the attention of this Court to the bail objection report filed by the Investigating Officer and submitted that the two offences registered against the first petitioner is under Section 27B of the NDPS Act, which for allegedly being in possession of small quantity of contraband article. Actually, the first petitioner is unaware of the above crimes. Likewise, Crime No.91/2023 is a case registered under Section 151Cr.P.C., which is not an offence. Similarly, the first crime is of the year 2012 and the same has ended in acquittal. Practically there are only one case as Crime No.92/2016. Hence, the contention that the first petitioner has antecedents is incorrect.

¶35

Indisputably, the petitioners surrendered before the jurisdictional court on 26.09.2023. The Investigating Officer

¶36

BAIL APPL.NO.11320 OF 2023

¶37

¶38

got the police custody of the petitioners on 03.10.2023. The recovery was effected. The investigation in the case is complete and the final report has been laid and the case is now pending committal. The petitioners have been in judicial custody for the last 130 days. The explanation offered by the learned counsel for the petitioners regarding the first petitioner's antecedents is plausible and I accept the same. Therefore, I am of the definite view that the petitioners' continued detention is not necessary. Hence, I am inclined to allow the bail application, but subject to stringent conditions.

¶39

In the result, the application is allowed, by directing the petitioners to be released on bail on them executing a separate bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum, to the satisfaction of the court having jurisdiction, which shall be subject to the following conditions:

¶40

(i) The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer on every Saturday between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m for a period of one month.

¶41

BAIL APPL.NO.11320 OF 2023

¶42

¶43

They shall also appear before the Investigating

¶44

Officer as and when directed.

¶45

(ii) The petitioners shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or procure to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any Police Officer or tamper with the evidence in any manner, whatsoever;

¶46

(iii) The petitioners shall not commit any offence while they are on bail;

¶47

(iv) The petitioners shall surrender their passports, if any, before the court below at the time of execution of the bond. If they have no passport, they shall file an affidavit to the effect before the court below on the date of execution of the bond;

¶48

(v) In case of violation of any of the conditions mentioned above, the jurisdictional court shall be empowered to consider the application for

¶49

BAIL APPL.NO.11320 OF 2023

¶50

¶51

cancellation of bail, if any filed, and pass orders

¶52

on the same, in accordance with law;

¶53

(vi) Applications for deletion/modification of the bail

¶54

conditions shall be moved and entertained by the court below.

Sd/-

C.S.DIAS

JUDGE

shg

Anu. v.S, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anu. v.S, 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

Ananta Kumar Sahoo, Vs State of Kerala

Arshad. K.K, Vs State of Kerala

Siju Vs State of Kerala

Om Prakash, Vs State of Kerala

Abraham K.v, Vs State of Kerala

Anilkumar J, Vs State of Kerala