Thampu vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Jun 30, 2023

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1350665

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/1350665
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr. Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas
Decided On: Jun 30, 2023
Case Number: Bail Appl./2659/2023

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Thampu

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 7th 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. petitioner is alleged to have assaulted the defactocomplainant. specific overt acts have been alleged against accused 3 and 4, while the other accused are alleged to have assaulted the defacato complainant. no specific overt acts have been attributed to the petitioner.8. taking into consideration the nature of allegations and alsothe overt acts alleged against each of the accused, i am of the view that, petitioner can.....

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. 2659 OF 2023 IN CRIME NO.272/2023 OF KUNDARA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM PETITIONER/7th ACCUSED: THAMPU AGED 29 YEARS S/O.THANKAPPAN, PUTHENVILA THAZHATHIL, 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 7th 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 7th 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. Petitioner is alleged to have assaulted the defacto

complainant. Specific overt acts have been alleged against accused 3 and 4, while the other accused are alleged to have assaulted the defacato complainant. No specific overt acts have been attributed to the petitioner.

8. Taking into consideration the nature of allegations and also

the overt acts alleged against each of the accused, I am of the view that, petitioner can be given the benefit of anticipatory bail provided, he surrenders before the Investigating Officer and subject himself to interrogation. Accordingly, this application is allowed on the following conditions: i. Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating -:4:-

Officer on or before 06.07.2023 and shall subject himself to interrogation. ii. If after interrogation, the Investigating Officer proceeds to arrest the petitioner, then, he shall be released on bail on him executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum before the Investigating Officer. iii. Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required and shall also co- operate with the investigation. iv. Petitioner shall not intimidate or attempt to influence the witnesses; nor shall he tamper with the evidence. v. Petitioner shall not commit any similar offences while he is on bail. vi. Petitioner shall not leave India without the permission of the Court having jurisdiction. In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the jurisdictional

Court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation, if any, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law, notwithstanding the bail having been granted by this Court. BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE jka/30.06.23.

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