Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. MONDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023 / 3RD ASWINA, 1945 CRIME NO.422/2023 OF MAVELIKKARA POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1: SREEKANTH AGED 36 YEARS S/O SIVAANKUTTY,MANGATTU HOUSE,VAZHUVADY, THAZHAKKARA P.O,MAVELIKARA,ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT NOW WORKING AS CONSTABLE GENERAL DUTY, PARAMILITARY FORCE SSB, SSB CAMP, DHANGAIN POLICE STATION,DHANGAIN, PATILUKA P.O,BARACHATTI DISTRICT,BIHAR STATE, PIN - 690102 BY ADVS. M.SUNILKUMAR S.SANDEEP (S-3458) RAJEESH V.R. RAKESH R. RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 BY ADV ADV SANAL P. RAJ - PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25.09.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner is the 1st accused in Crime No.422/2023 of Mavelikkara Police Station which was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 452, 294(b), 341, 323, 324, 326, 506 (1) and 427 read with Section 34 of IPC.
2. The prosecution case is that on 20.04.2023 at 10.45 p.m.,
the petitioner along with other accused trespassed into the house of the defacto complainant and the 1st petitioner allegedly hit the defacto complainant on his head by using a stick, abused him with obscene words and when the wife of the defacto complainant intervened the 3 rd accused wrongfully restrained her. The further allegation is also that the wife and son of the defacto complainant were also assaulted by the 1st and 2nd accused. The crime was registered in such circumstances. The petitioner along with the 3rd accused have earlier approached by this Court by filing B.A. No.3568/2023 seeking anticipatory bail, which was disposed of as per Annexure F. In Annexure F, the application for bail of the petitioner was dismissed and anticipatory bail was granted to the 3rd accused. This application is submitted by the petitioner in such circumstances seeking anticipatory bail.
3. Heard Sri.Sunil Kumar M., learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Sanal P. Raj, learned Public Prosecutor for the State.
4. I have carefully gone through the records. This Court in
the earlier application specifically took note of the overt acts alleged against the petitioner, and found that the petitioner is not entitled for anticipatory bail. Even though the learned counsel for the petitioner, relied on Annexures A, B and C documents pointing out that, he also sustained some injuries in the accident, I am of the view that, the same by itself cannot be treated as a change in circumstances. This Court already considered the contentions on behalf of the petitioner and found that he is not entitled for bail. Therefore, in the absence of any change in circumstances, I do not find this as a fit case in which application for anticipatory bail can be maintained. Accordingly, this application is dismissed. Sd/- ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. JUDGE scs APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 7469/2023 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR AND FIS IN CRIME NO Annexure B TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL RECORD OF THE TREATMENT OF THE PETITIONER Annexure C TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL RECORD OF THE TREATMENT OF THE PETITIONER IN MCH KOTTAYAM Annexure D TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTO PRINT OF THE INJURIES SUSTAINED BY THE PETITIONER Annexure E TRUE COPY OF THE BAIL APPLICATION NO COURT Annexure F TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25.05.2023 IN B.A NO 3568/2023 Annexure G TRUE COPIES OF THE COMPLAINT IN CMP NO