SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Online)(KER) 13549

HIGH COURT OF KERALA
ASHOK MENON, J
SHEHNAS – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Bail Appl./8063/2020



Advocates:
SRI.RENJIT GEORGE, SRI.SANTHOSH PETER SR PP

The court reinforced that anticipatory bail can be granted conditionally based on the accused's role and risk factors, with careful consideration of all parties involved.

Headnote:

Bail - Anticipatory Bail - Cr.P.C Section 438 - The court analyzed the provisions under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C, focusing on the necessity for bail considerations, particularly regarding the nature of accusations, previous criminal history, and evidence tampering concerns, leading to a partial grant of anticipatory bail.

Fact of the Case:

The applicants, accused of assault and criminal trespass, sought anticipatory bail, claiming innocence and minimal injury. The prosecution argued that previous enmity motivated the violent act, leading to the charges against them.

Finding of the Court:

The court noted the serious nature of the allegations against the first accused, citing his criminal history, while recognizing the second accused's lesser involvement and lack of prior offenses. The application for anticipatory bail was partially allowed based on these findings.

Issues: Whether to grant anticipatory bail considering the nature of the accusations, criminal antecedents, and risk of evidence tampering.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for careful appraisal of each accused's involvement, balancing the severity of accusations with their personal history and risk posed to the investigation.

Final Decision: Anticipatory bail granted to the second accused; denied for the first.

ORDER

Dated this the 7th day of January 2021 This is an application filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C seeking anticipatory bail.

The applicants are accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.2843/2020 of Kundara Police Station, for having allegedly committed offences punishable under Sections 452, 324 and 308 r/w Section 34 of the IPC.

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on

21.11.2020 owing to the previous enmity towards the de facto complainant for not having given the accused goonda fees and not providing them with a glass for consuming alcohol, the first accused allegedly attempted to hit the de facto complainant on his head with an iron rod, which he evaded and hit landed on his shoulder and he sustained a contusion on the shoulder and the back side of his body. The other accused also assaulted him and accused Nos.2 to 4 tried to break open the door at the room where the de facto complainant and others were residing and committed criminal house-trespass.

3. The applicants state that they are innocent and the allegations are not true. No grave injury has been sustained and Section 308 IPC has been incorporated merely to deny bail to the applicants and therefore they seek anticipatory bail.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the applicants and the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. The first accused is the main perpetrator of the crime and the learned Public Prosecutor submits that he has also got criminal antecedents. However, the 2nd accused has no criminal antecedents and the overt act attributed to him also minimal. He has not used any dangerous weapons. Under the circumstances, I find that the application is only to be allowed in part. The application as far as the 1st accused concerned is dismissed, as regards the 2nd accused is allowed.

6. In the result, the applicants are directed to surrender before the investigating officer within two weeks, and after interrogation and recovery, in the event of their being arrested, the 1st accused shall be produced before the jurisdictional court and is at liberty to apply for regular bail, while the 2nd accused shall be released on bail on the 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 arresting officer and on the following conditions;

1.He shall not tamper with evidence, influence or intimidate witnesses.

2.He shall appear before the investigating officer as and when called for.

3.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.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top