Prince vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Orders Decided Feb 24, 2022

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1443514

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/1443514
Court: Kerala Orders High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr. Justice Gopinath P.
Decided On: Feb 24, 2022
Case Number: Bail Appl./465/2022

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Prince

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....accused in crime no.7/2022 of kalladikode police station, palakkad district alleging commission of offences under sections 323, 324, 326, 508 read with 34 of the ipc.2. the allegation against the petitioners is that, the petitioners attacked the defacto complainant owing to previous animosity arising out of an issue which happened in a bar wherethe defacto complainant was working. it is alleged that on 02.01.2022 at about 9.45 pm, the petitioners attacked the defacto complainant and caused serious injuries including a fracture on the skull of the defacto complainant.3. learned counsel for the petitioners would submit thatthe entire allegations are false. it is submitted that the petitioners had no occasion to attack the defacto complainant. it is submitted that there were some issues between the defacto complainant and others and he might have sustained injuries on account of the issue with other persons, whose names are mentioned in paragraph 3 of the bail application. it is submitted that, at any rate, custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not necessary in the matter for the purpose of any investigation.4. learned public prosecutor opposes the grant of bail. itis submitted that going by the information given by the defacto complainant, the petitioners had brutally attacked him using a knuckle duster. it is submitted that the injuries occasioned to the defacto complainant corresponds with the allegations raised against the petitioners. it is submitted that custodial interrogationof the petitioners is absolutely necessary in the matter. it is submitted that fairly serious injuries were occasioned to the defacto complainant and the petitioners are not entitled to be released on anticipatory bail. having regard to the the fact and circumstances of the caseand considering the fact that the defacto complainant had clearly identified the petitioners as the persons who attacked him, and noticing that serious injuries including fracture of skull was occasioned.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P. THURSDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 / 5TH PHALGUNA, 1943 PETITIONERS: 1 PRINCE AGED 21 YEARS 2 SHAHUL HAMEED AGED 24 YEARS BY ADV T.K.SANDEEP RESPONDENT: STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 BY ADV PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. T.R. RENJITH (SR.PP) THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.02.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

Petitioners are the accused in Crime No.7/2022 of Kalladikode Police Station, Palakkad district alleging commission of offences under Sections 323, 324, 326, 508 read with 34 of the IPC.

2. The allegation against the petitioners is that, the petitioners attacked the defacto complainant owing to previous animosity arising out of an issue which happened in a bar where

the defacto complainant was working. It is alleged that on 02.01.2022 at about 9.45 PM, the petitioners attacked the defacto complainant and caused serious injuries including a fracture on the skull of the defacto complainant.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that

the entire allegations are false. It is submitted that the petitioners had no occasion to attack the defacto complainant. It is submitted that there were some issues between the defacto complainant and others and he might have sustained injuries on account of the issue with other persons, whose names are mentioned in paragraph 3 of the bail application. It is submitted that, at any rate, custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not necessary in the matter for the purpose of any investigation.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the grant of bail. It

is submitted that going by the information given by the defacto complainant, the petitioners had brutally attacked him using a knuckle duster. It is submitted that the injuries occasioned to the defacto complainant corresponds with the allegations raised against the petitioners. It is submitted that custodial interrogation

of the petitioners is absolutely necessary in the matter. It is submitted that fairly serious injuries were occasioned to the defacto complainant and the petitioners are not entitled to be released on anticipatory bail. Having regard to the the fact and circumstances of the case

and considering the fact that the defacto complainant had clearly identified the petitioners as the persons who attacked him, and noticing that serious injuries including fracture of skull was occasioned to the defacto complainant, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. In the result this application fails and dismissed.

Sd/- GOPINATH P. JUDGE AJ APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 465/2022 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure I A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN 07/2022 OF KALLADIKODE POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD DIST DATED 04.01.2022.

Same Court & Year Kerala Orders · 2022 Same Parties Prince vs State of Kerala Same Judge Honourable Mr. Justice Gopinath P.