Shinod vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Feb 01, 2022

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1443701

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/1443701
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr. Justice Gopinath P.
Decided On: Feb 01, 2022
Case Number: Bail Appl./486/2022

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Shinod

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....alleging commission of offences under sections 294 (b), 452, 323, 324, 354 & 427 read with section 34 of the indian penal code.2. the allegation against the petitioner is that he along with the otheraccused tresspassed into the house of the de facto complainant and after uttering obscene words, the 1st accused assaulted the husband of the de facto complainant using a stick and when the de facto complainant attempted to interfere, she was assaulted by accused nos. 1 & 2. it is also alleged that accused nos. 3 to 5 destroyed a window pane of the house of the de facto complainant causing a damage to the tune of rs.10,000/-.3. the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the de factocomplainant is a serving police constable. it is submitted that there are some disputes between the petitioner and other accused and the husband of the de facto complainant which led to registration of a false crime against the petitioner. it is submitted that the specific allegations are against accused nos. 1 & 2 and the only allegation against the petitioner is that he along with accused nos. 4 and 5 destroyed window pane of the house of the de facto complainant.4. the learned public prosecutor refers to the statement given by the de facto complainant and submits that the petitioner along with otherb.a. no.486/2022 -3- accused in the case had criminally tresspassed into the house de facto complainant owing to the fact that the husband of the de facto complainant had objected to their consumption of alcohol. it is submitted that going by the statement of the de facto complainant, the offences alleged have been committed by the petitioner.5. having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case andtaking into account the nature of the allegations against the petitioner and considering the fact that thrust of the allegation is against accused nos. 1 & 2, i am of the opinion that the petitioner can be granted anticipatory bail as his custody may not be required.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P. TUESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 / 12TH MAGHA, 1943 BAIL APPL. NO. 486 OF 2022 Crime No.10/2022 of Parassala Police Station PETITIONER/ACCUSED: SHINOD AGED 31 YEARS S/O. SOMAN, RESIDING AT S. L. BHAVAN, PARUTHIVILA, DHANUVACHAPURAM, KOLLAYIL VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695 503. BY ADVS. J.R.PREM NAVAZ SUMEEN S.

RESPONDENT/STATE: STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031. OTHER PRESENT: SRI. T.R. RANJITH (SR.PP) THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.02.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: B.A. No.486/2022 -2-

ORDER

The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.10/2022 of Parassala Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram District alleging commission of offences under Sections 294 (b), 452, 323, 324, 354 & 427 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The allegation against the petitioner is that he along with the other

accused tresspassed into the house of the de facto complainant and after uttering obscene words, the 1st accused assaulted the husband of the de facto complainant using a stick and when the de facto complainant attempted to interfere, she was assaulted by accused Nos. 1 & 2. It is also alleged that accused Nos. 3 to 5 destroyed a window pane of the house of the de facto complainant causing a damage to the tune of Rs.10,000/-.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the de facto

complainant is a serving police constable. It is submitted that there are some disputes between the petitioner and other accused and the husband of the de facto complainant which led to registration of a false crime against the petitioner. It is submitted that the specific allegations are against accused Nos. 1 & 2 and the only allegation against the petitioner is that he along with accused Nos. 4 and 5 destroyed window pane of the house of the de facto complainant.

4. The learned Public Prosecutor refers to the statement given by the de facto complainant and submits that the petitioner along with other

B.A. No.486/2022 -3- accused in the case had criminally tresspassed into the house de facto complainant owing to the fact that the husband of the de facto complainant had objected to their consumption of alcohol. It is submitted that going by the statement of the de facto complainant, the offences alleged have been committed by the petitioner.

5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and

taking into account the nature of the allegations against the petitioner and considering the fact that thrust of the allegation is against accused Nos. 1 & 2, I am of the opinion that the petitioner can be granted anticipatory bail as his custody may not be required for the purpose of investigation in the matter. In the result, this bail application is allowed. It is directed that the petitioner shall be released on bail, in the event of arrest in connection with Crime No.10/2022 of Parassala Police Station subject to the following conditions:-

(i) Petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court;

(ii) Petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation and he shall

surrender before the Investigating officer in Crime No.10/2022 of Parassala Police Station at 9 a.m on 07-02-2022. The petitioner shall, after being interrogated, be released on bail in terms of this order; B.A. No.486/2022 -4-

(iii) Petitioner shall not attempt to contact the de facto complainant or interfere with the investigation or to influence or intimidate any witness in Crime No.10/2022 of Parassala Police Station;

(iv) Petitioner shall not involve in any other crime while on bail. If any of the aforesaid conditions are violated, the Investigating officer in Crime No.10/2022 of Parassala Police Station may file an application before the jurisdictional Court for cancellation of bail. Sd/- GOPINATH P. JUDGE AMG

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