2024 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 63197
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
SARATH M.S – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Bail Appl. 1327/2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS TUESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 29TH PHALGUNA, 1945 BAIL APPL. NO. 1327 OF 2024 CRIME NO.2/2024 OF KATTOOR POLICE STATION, THRISSUR PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1:
SARATH M.S, AGED 39 YEARS S/O.SIVARAMAN M.K, MANAMPILAKKAL HOUSE, VELLANI P.O, KARALAM (PART),THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680701 BY ADV NIREESH MATHEW RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI, PIN - 682031 BY ADV SMT. NEEMA T. V. - SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
19.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS TUESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 29TH PHALGUNA, 1945 BAIL APPL. NO. 1796 OF 2024 CRIME NO.2/2024 OF KATTOOR POLICE STATION, THRISSUR PETITIONER/ACCUSED NOS.2 TO 5:
1 DINESH, AGED 34 YEARS S/O. DASAN, PARAKKAL HOUSE, VELLANI (P.O), MANAVALASSERY, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680701
2 VIMAL.P.K, AGED 24 YEARS S/O. KUMARAN, PULLATH HOUSE, KARALAM VILLAGE, VELLANI (P.O),MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK,THRISSUR DISTRICT., PIN - 680701
3 SHINE MOHAN, AGED 36 YEARS S/O. MOHANAN, PULLATH HOUSE,KARALAM VILLAGE, VELLANI (P.O),MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK,THRISSUR DISTRICT., PIN - 680701
4 SUJITH.K.S, AGED 33 YEARS KARIKOOTTAM HOUSE, KARALAM VILLAGE, VELLANI (P.O),MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK,THRISSUR DISTRICT., PIN - 680701 BY ADV NIREESH MATHEW RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI, PIN - 682031 BY ADV.
SMT. NEEMA T. V. - SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
19.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
C.S.DIAS, J.
--------------------------------------------------------
B.A. Nos. 1327 OF 2024 &
1796 OF 2024 -------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 19th day of March, 2024
C O M M O N O R D E R
The applications are filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, 'Code'), for orders of pre-arrest bail.
2. The petitioner in B. A. No.1327/2024 is the first accused and the petitioners in B. A. No.1796/2024 are the accused 2 to 5 in Crime No.2/2024 of the Kattoor Police Station, Thrissur, registered against the accused (seven in number) for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 341, 324, 326, 427 and 308 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
3. The crux of the prosecution allegation is that, on
01.01.2024 at around 01.00 hours, the accused, in furtherance of their common intention, had formed an unlawful assembly and called the defacto complainant and his friends to the Vellani Shiva Temple and when they reached there, the accused restrained and beat the defacto complainant and his friends, with iron rod and wooden sticks. The defacto complainant suffered a fracture on his knee and an injury on his head. One of the injured had suffered a broken teeth and a fracture on his nose and another person had lost a gold chain worth Rs. 65,000/- (Rupees sixty five thousand only).
Thus, the accused have committed the above offence 4. Heard; Sri. Nireesh Mathew, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Smt. Neema T. V., the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners strenuously argued that the petitioners are totally innocent of the accusations levelled against them. By any stretch of imagination can the offences under Sections 326 and 308 IPC be attracted to the facts of the case. In fact, there was case and counter case registered against the parties. The petitioners have also sustained serious injuries in the incident, as evidenced by Annexures A2 to A5 treatment records. This by itself shows that it was the defacto complainant and his friends who had assaulted the petitioners. In any given case, the petitioners’ custodial interrogation is not necessa