Sarath vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Orders Decided Jun 30, 2023

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1350663

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1350663
Court: Kerala Orders High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr. Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas
Decided On: Jun 30, 2023
Case Number: Bail Appl./2658/2023

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Sarath

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....alleging offences punishable under sections 143, 147, 323, 341, 324, 326 and 308 r/w section 149 of the indian penal code, 1860.3. according to the prosecution, on 11.02.2023 at around 9.00 p.m., the accused had due to an enmity, assaulted the defacto complainant using dangerous weapons and thereby committed the offences alleged.4. smt. anjana kannath, the learned counsel for the petitioner,contented that, the prosecution allegations are false and the incident as alleged had not occurred. it was further submitted that, accused nos. 1, 4, 9 and 11 have already been granted anticipatory bail, and considering the nature of overt acts alleged against the petitioner as the 6th accused, he should also be given the benefit of pre-arrest bail. it was also pointed out that, no specific overt acts have been alleged against the petitioner except general allegations and that petitioner is-:3:- willing to abide by any conditions that may be imposed upon him.5. smt. sreeja.v, the learned public prosecutor, opposed the application and submitted that, petitioner along with other accused are alleged to have committed a serious offence and had brutallyassaulted the defacto complainant. it was further submitted that, even though some of the other accused have already been granted bail, the nature of overt acts alleged against each accused are different and therefore, merely because few of the other accused have been granted anticipatory bail should not be a reason to give the benefit of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner.6. i have considered the rival contentions.7. the nature of overt acts alleged against the petitioner is serious. he is alleged to have inflicted serious injuries upon the defacto complainant. therefore, merely because few of the other accused have been given the benefit of anticipatory bail is not areason to extent such a benefit to the petitioner. considering the aforesaid circumstances, i am of the view that, this is not a fit case where petitioner can be.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS FRIDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 9TH ASHADHA, 1945 BAIL APPL. NO. 2658 OF 2023 IN CRIME NO.272/2023 OF KUNDARA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM PETITIONER/6TH ACCUSED: SARATH AGED 26 YEARS S/O.SASI, PUTHENVILAYIL KIZHAKKATHIL, ELLUKUZHI, ALUMMOODU P.O, KOTTAMKARA, KUNDARA, KOLLAM, PIN - 691577 BY ADVS. PRATHEESH.P ANJANA KANNATH RESPONDENTS/STATE: 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER KUNDARA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM, PIN - 691501 BY ADV SREEJA.V. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30.06.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: -:2:-
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
===================== ===== ================ Dated this the 30th day of June, 2023

ORDER

This is an application seeking pre-arrest bail filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

2. Petitioner is the 6th accused in Crime No.272/2023 of Kundara

Police Station, Kollam District, alleging offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 323, 341, 324, 326 and 308 r/w Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

3. According to the prosecution, on 11.02.2023 at around 9.00 p.m., the accused had due to an enmity, assaulted the defacto complainant using dangerous weapons and thereby committed the offences alleged.

4. Smt. Anjana Kannath, the learned counsel for the petitioner,

contented that, the prosecution allegations are false and the incident as alleged had not occurred. It was further submitted that, accused Nos. 1, 4, 9 and 11 have already been granted anticipatory bail, and considering the nature of overt acts alleged against the petitioner as the 6th accused, he should also be given the benefit of pre-arrest bail. It was also pointed out that, no specific overt acts have been alleged against the petitioner except general allegations and that petitioner is

-:3:- willing to abide by any conditions that may be imposed upon him.

5. Smt. Sreeja.V, the learned Public Prosecutor, opposed the application and submitted that, petitioner along with other accused are alleged to have committed a serious offence and had brutally

assaulted the defacto complainant. It was further submitted that, even though some of the other accused have already been granted bail, the nature of overt acts alleged against each accused are different and therefore, merely because few of the other accused have been granted anticipatory bail should not be a reason to give the benefit of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner.

6. I have considered the rival contentions.

7. The nature of overt acts alleged against the petitioner is serious. He is alleged to have inflicted serious injuries upon the defacto complainant. Therefore, merely because few of the other accused have been given the benefit of anticipatory bail is not a

reason to extent such a benefit to the petitioner. Considering the aforesaid circumstances, I am of the view that, this is not a fit case where petitioner can be released on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, I decline to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

8. However, if the petitioner surrenders before the Investigating

Officer on or before 06.07.2023 and subject himself to interrogation and in case the Investigating Officer proceeds to arrest him, then he shall be produced before the Jurisdictional Magistrate without delay. In the event of any application for bail being filed, the same shall be -:4:- considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with law, without delay. This bail application is dismissed. BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE jka/30.06.23.

Same Court & Year Kerala Orders · 2023 Same Parties Sarath vs State of Kerala Same Judge Honourable Mr. Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas