Allowed

Umesh v, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC5 Feb 2024Bail Appl./181/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed pre-arrest bail to accused 5 and 6 in a criminal case alleging IPC offences. The court held that custodial interrogation was unnecessary as no specific overt act was alleged against them and no recovery was required from them.

What did the court decide?

Pre-arrest bail allowed subject to surrender within ten days, execution of bond, cooperation with investigation, and other standard conditions.

Umesh v, Vs State of Kerala — Anticipatory Bail | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS

¶4

MONDAY, THE 5^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 16TH MAGHA, 1945

¶5

BAIL APPL. NO. 181 OF 2024

¶6

CRIME NO.2362/2023 OF Varkala Police Station,

¶7

Thiruvananthapuram

¶8

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 5 & 6:

¶9

1 UMESH V, AGED 37 YEARS S/O VIJAYAM KUMAR, LEKSHAM VEEDU VETTOOR, CHERUNNIYOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695142

¶10

2 RAHUL, AGED 25 YEARS S/O RAMANAN, PALLIKUNNIL VEEDU, PALACHIRA, CHERUNNIYOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695142

¶11

BY ADV P.ANOOP (MULAVANA)

¶12

RESPONDENT/STATE/DE FACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶13

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

¶14

sr pp smt shyni v o

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE

¶16

FOLLOWING:

¶17

¶18

BAIL APPL. NO. 181 OF 2024

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

The application is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for an order of prearrest bail.

¶21

The petitioners are the accused 5 and 6 in Crime No.2362/2023 of the Varkala Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, registered against them for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 506, 323, 324, 427,308 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶22

The essence of the prosecution case is that; on 17.12.2023 at around 8.00 p.m, the accused had complained about the food that was served by the de facto in his hotel. Subsequently, on the following day at around 12.15 am, the accused Nos. 1 to 6 went to the said hotel of the de facto complainant and abused him in vulgar language. Then, the accused 1 to 3 went to the de facto complainant, the 3^rd accused hit him using his hands on his cheek. The accused also grabbed the

¶23

¶24

BAIL APPL. NO. 181 OF 2024

¶25

mobile phone worth Rs.15,000/- and threatened to hit him The 2^nd accused used a machete and attacked de facto complainant causing injuries to his body. The 2^nd

¶26

accused also caused damages to the heater worth Rs.40,000/-. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences.

¶27

Heard; Sri.P.Anoop, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Smt. Shyni O.V., the learned Senior Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent.

¶28

The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are totally innocent of the accusation levelled against them. There is no specific over tact alleged against the petitioners in the FIR. Therefore, the offence under Section 308 will not be attracted. The wound certificate also would substantiate that the offence under Section 308 will not be attracted. The said offence has been deliberately incorporated only for the purpose of

¶29

¶30

BAIL APPL. NO. 181 OF 2024

¶31

denying bail to the petitioners. The petitioners are law-abiding citizen. They are willing to abide by any stringent condition that may be imposed by this Court and also co-operate with the Investigating Officer. Hence, the bail application may be allowed.

¶32

The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. Nonetheless, she conceded to the fact that there is no specific over tact alleged against the petitioners that they caused any injuries to the de facto complainant. She also made available the accident register and wound certificate dated 18.12.2023, to substantiate the injuries suffered by the de facto complainant. She prayed that the application may be dismissed.

¶33

After bestowing my anxious consideration to the materials placed on record, the rival submission made across the Bar, particularly taking note of the fact that there is no specific overt act alleged against the accused 5 and 6, that their custodial interrogation is

¶34

¶35

BAIL APPL. NO. 181 OF 2024

¶36

not necessary and that there is no recovery to be effected through them, I am of the view that the application can be allowed. Hence, petitioners are entitled to an order of pre-arrest bail.

¶37

In the result, the application is allowed subject to the following conditions:

¶38

i) The petitioners are directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer within ten days from today.

¶39

ii) In the event of the petitioners arrest, the Investigating Officer shall produce them before the jurisdictional court on the date of surrender itself.

¶40

iii) On such production, the jurisdictional court shall release the petitioners on bail on them executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only), with two solvent sureties for the like amount each, to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court;

¶41

iv) The petitioners shall co-operate with the investigation and make themselves available for

¶42

¶43

BAIL APPL. NO. 181 OF 2024

¶44

interrogation and for the purpose of investigation as and when the Investigating Officer directs;

¶45

v). The petitioners shall not intimidate witnesses

¶46

or interfere with the investigation in any manner;

¶47

vi). The petitioners shall not get involved in any other offence while on bail.

¶48

vii). In case of violation of any of the conditions mentioned above, the jurisdictional court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation of bail, if any filed, and pass orders on the same, in accordance with law.

¶49

viii). Applications for deletion/modification of the bail conditions shall also be filed before the court below.

¶50

ix). Needless to mention, it would be well within the powers of the Investigating Officer to investigate the matter and, if necessary, to effect recoveries on the information, if any, given by the petitioner even while the petitioner is on bail as laid down by the Hon'ble

¶51

BAIL APPL. NO. 181 OF 2024

¶52

¶53

Supreme Court in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another [2020 (1) KHC 663] .

¶54

Sd/-C.S.DIAS(J) JUDGE

¶55

lsn

Umesh v, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Umesh 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anu. v.S, Vs State of Kerala

Om Prakash, Vs State of Kerala

Abraham K.v, Vs State of Kerala

Syamala Vs State of Kerala

Ubaise Vs State of Kerala

Binu Paul Vs State of Kerala