Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Renjith, vs State of Kerala,

Renjith, vs State of Kerala,

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Feb 01, 2022
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1443751

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

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Kerala High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
Bail Appl./491/2022

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Renjith,

Respondent

State of Kerala,

Excerpt

.....is the sole accused in crime no.29/2021 of the pandalam police station, pathanamthitta district alleging commission of offences under sections 341, 294(b) & 308 of the ipc.2. the allegation against the petitioner is that, when thedefacto complainant questioned him regarding smoking at the workplace, the petitioner attacked the defacto complainant and caused serious injuries to him including three lacerated injuries and a deep injury on the neck. the attack was allegedly carried out using a flat but sharp iron piece. injuries are reported on the right palm of the defacto complainant and the upper portion of the right knee of the defacto complainant.3. learned counsel for the petitioner submits that thepetitioner has been in custody from 07.01.2022. it is submitted that the petitioner is innocent in the matter and has been roped in on account of some misunderstanding. it is submitted that the petitioner is only 22 years of age and no criminal antecedents have been reported against him. it is submitted that continued detention of the petitioner is not necessary for the purpose of any investigation.4. heard the learned public prosecutor also. learnedpublic prosecutor vehemently opposes the grant of bail. it is pointed out that the petitioner had brutally attacked the defacto complainant when the defacto complainant had questioned him regarding smoking at the workplace. it is submitted that the injuries reported by the defacto complainant are quite serious and the petitioner had used dangerous weapons to inflict injuries on the defacto complainant. it is submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail.5. having regard to the facts and circumstances of thecase and considering the nature of the allegations against the petitioner and taking a lenient view on account of the age of the petitioner and considering the fact that the continued detention is not necessary for the purpose of any investigation, i am inclined to allow this bail.....

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 PETITIONER: RENJITH, AGED 22 YEARS S/O.REMANAN, RENGAN BHAVAN, ANAYADI, SOORANADU NORTH, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN-690 561. BY ADVS. MATHEW KURIAKOSE J.KRISHNAKUMAR (ADOOR) MONI GEORGE RESPONDENT: STATE OF KERALA, (CRIME NO.29/2022 OF PANDALAM POLICE STATION), REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031. SRI. M.C. ASHI (PP) THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.02.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: GOPINATH.P, J ------------------------------ B.A. No.491 of 2022 ------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of February, 2022

ORDER

Petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.29/2021 of the Pandalam Police Station, Pathanamthitta district alleging commission of offences under Sections 341, 294(b) & 308 of the IPC.

2. The allegation against the petitioner is that, when the

defacto complainant questioned him regarding smoking at the workplace, the petitioner attacked the defacto complainant and caused serious injuries to him including three lacerated injuries and a deep injury on the neck. The attack was allegedly carried out using a flat but sharp iron piece. Injuries are reported on the right palm of the defacto complainant and the upper portion of the right knee of the defacto complainant.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

petitioner has been in custody from 07.01.2022. It is submitted that the petitioner is innocent in the matter and has been roped in on account of some misunderstanding. It is submitted that the petitioner is only 22 years of age and no criminal antecedents have been reported against him. It is submitted that continued detention of the petitioner is not necessary for the purpose of any investigation.

4. Heard the learned Public Prosecutor also. Learned

Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the grant of bail. It is pointed out that the petitioner had brutally attacked the defacto complainant when the defacto complainant had questioned him regarding smoking at the workplace. It is submitted that the injuries reported by the defacto complainant are quite serious and the petitioner had used dangerous weapons to inflict injuries on the defacto complainant. It is submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail.

5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the

case and considering the nature of the allegations against the petitioner and taking a lenient view on account of the age of the petitioner and considering the fact that the continued detention is not necessary for the purpose of any investigation, I am inclined to allow this bail application.

6. In the result this bail application is allowed. It is directed that the petitioner shall be released on bail, subject to the following conditions:-

(i) Petitioner shall execute 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 appear before the investigating

officer as in Crime No.29/2022 of Pandalam Police Station at 11:00 AM on every Saturday until filing of final report in Crime No.29/2022 of Pandalam Police Station.

(iii) Petitioner shall not attempt to interfere with the investigation, influence or intimidate the defacto complainant or any witness in Crime No.29/2022 of Pandalam 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.29/2022 of Pandalam Police Station may file an application before the jurisdictional Court for cancellation of bail. Sd/- GOPINATH P. JUDGE AJ

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial