Back
2021 Supreme(Online)(KER) 15832
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
ASHOK MENON, J
FIROZ – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Bail Appl./1288/2021
Sri.P.T.SHEEJISH
The absence of specific overt acts and prior criminal history justifies the granting of anticipatory bail under the Cr.P.C.
Headnote:
Bail - Anticipatory Bail - Code of Criminal Procedure Section 438 - The court granted anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C., emphasizing the absence of specific overt acts by the accused and lack of criminal antecedents, directing conditions for bail to ensure cooperation with the investigation.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant, accused in a riot involving assault with dangerous weapons, sought anticipatory bail, asserting no direct involvement or prior criminal record. The prosecution indicated main charges were against others and there were no recoveries from the applicant.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that while the applicant was part of an unlawful assembly, there was no evidence of direct participation in violence or possession of weapons. Given the lack of previous criminal record and no specific overt acts, bail was granted.
Issues: Whether the applicant should be granted anticipatory bail given the allegations of involvement in a violent offense without specific acts attributed to him.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the principle that in the absence of specific overt acts and considering the applicant's clean record, granting anticipatory bail is justified.
Final Decision: Anticipatory bail granted with conditions.
ORDER
Dated this the 18th day of February 2021 This is an application filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C seeking anticipatory bail.
2. The Applicant is the 5th accused in Crime No.1252 of 2020 of Palghat Town North Police Station, for having allegedly committed offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 308 R/w 149 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The prosecution case, in brief is that, the applicant was a member of an unlawful assembly with the remaining accused and in prosecution of the common object of the said unlawful assembly to assault the defacto complainant. They committed riot armed with dangerous weapons like iron rod and accused nos.1 and 2 assaulted the defacto complainant after wrongfully restraining him by means of dangerous weapons like iron lever and iron rod and caused simple hurt to him. Under such circumstances using dangerous weapons with the knowledge, if they, by their act, caused death would be guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder and thereby committed the alleged offences. The applicant was a member of unlawful assembly but there is no specific overt act that and neither was he wielding any dangerous weapon. He has no criminal antecedents and therefore, he seeks pre-arrest bail.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned Public Prosecutor.
The learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that applicant has no criminal antecedent, the 4th accused were already arrested and released on bail. The main accusation is made against 1st and 2nd accused for having assaulted the de facto complainant with dangerous weapons, nothing is to be recovered from the applicant and therefore the applicant is seeking for a pre-arrest bail.
Hence, the application is allowed and the applicant is directed to surrender before the investigating officer within two weeks, and after interrogation in the event of his being arrested, he shall be released on bail on execution of a bond for Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two solvent sureties for the like amount each to the satisfaction of the investigating officer and on the following conditions;
i.He shall not tamper with evidence, influence or intimidate witnesses.
ii. He shall appear before the investigating officer as and when called for.
iii. He shall not get involved in similar offences during the bail period.
In the event of violating the bail conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to apply for cancellation of bail before the jurisdictional court.
