Kerala High Court
Bail Appl./9364/2019 of SHYJU Vs STATE OF KERALA, on 31 December 2019
COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON TUESDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 / 10TH POUSHA,1941 Bail Appl..No.9364 OF 2019 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMC 2022/2019 DATED 16-12- 2019 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT,KOLLAM CRIME NO.2236/2019 OF
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON
TUESDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 / 10TH POUSHA,1941
Bail Appl..No.9364 OF 2019
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMC 2022/2019 DATED 16-12-2019 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT,KOLLAM
CRIME NO.2236/2019 OF Kundara Police Station , Kollam PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS 1, 2 AND 5:
1SHYJUAGED 37 YEARS
S/O.CLETUS, SHIBUBHAVANAM, CHERUMOODU, VELLIMON, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN-691508.
2RAJU,AGED 50 YEARS
S/O.JOHN, OLIKKARAMELATHIL, CHERUMOODU, VELLIMON, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN-691508.
3KUTTAN @ ANILAL,AGED 37 YEARSS/O.ANSIL, AJITHABHAVAN, CHERUMOODU, VELLIMON,KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN-691508.
BY ADV. SRI.P.P.RAJESH
RESPONDENTS/STATE:
1STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH
COURT OF KERALA, KOCHI-31.
2STATION HOUSE OFFICER,KUNDARA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691503.KUNDARA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691503.
SRI.T.R.RANJITH, PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSIONON 31.12.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THEFOLLOWING:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
Dated this the 31[st] day of December, 2019
The petitioners are the accused Nos.1, 2 and 5 in CrimeNo.2236/2019 of Kundara Police Station, for having allegedlycommitted offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324,506(1) and 326 read with Section 34 IPC along with anotheraccused who is the third accused.
2. The allegation against the petitioners are that on05.10.2019 at about 9.30 p.m the second accused wrongfullyrestrained the defacto complainant and his daughter while theywere travelling in a motor cycle and the accused 1 to 4, infurtherance of their common intention, assaulted the defactocomplainant with dangerous weapon like iron rod and thespecific allegation is that the third accused fisted him on theleft eye causing fracture to the bone below the left eye.
3. The third accused was already released on bail. Thepetitioners are allegedly absconding and not available forinterrogation. Therefore the learned Sessions Judge was reluctant in granting the pre-arrest bail. In view of theallegations, it is doubtful whether Section 326 could beattracted because the specific allegation is that the thirdaccused had fisted the defacto complainant caused grievousinjury with his hand. No grievous injury has been inflicted withiron rods by the petitioners, even going by the allegations ofprosecution. The petitioners do not have any criminalantecedents. No custodial interrogation is found essential.Therefore, I find that this is a fit case for granting pre-arrestbail.
4. In the event of the petitioners being arrested, theyshall be released on bail on execution of bond for Rs.50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand only) each with two solvent suretieseach to the like amount to the satisfaction of the InvestigatingOfficer and on condition that they shall appear before theInvestigating Officer on every Monday between 9.00 a.m and12.p.m for a period of three months after filing a final reportwhichever is earlier. They shall not intimidate or influencewitnesses and shall co-operate with the investigation.
Breach of any of the above conditions would entail in the prosecution applying for cancellation of the bail before theJurisdictional Magistrate.
Sd/-
ASHOK MENON
JUDGE
rpk