William vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Apr 01, 2022

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1443879

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/1443879
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr. Justice Gopinath P.
Decided On: Apr 01, 2022
Case Number: Bail Appl./505/2022

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

William

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....294(b), 323, 324, 326, 354 & 506 r/w sections 34 & 149 of the indian penal code.3. the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner alongwith accused 1 & 2, the sons of the petitioner, trespassed into the house of the de facto complainant and the 1st accused hit the de facto complaint with a small granite rubble, following which, the de facto complainant sustained an injury on his right eye. it is also alleged that the petitioner/3rd accused fisted on the chest and shoulders of the de facto complainant and that the accused 1 and 2 abused the wife of the de facto complainant.4. the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that thepetitioner and the de facto complainant belong to the same political party and a dispute arose between the petitioner and the de facto complainant regarding the failure of the petitioner's sons to ..3.. participate in some political campaigns, as a result of which, a false case has been registered against the petitioner and others. it is submitted that the petitioner is absolutely innocent in the matter and that he has been falsely implicated. it is submitted that the main crux of the allegations is against the accused 1 and 2 and not against the petitioner herein. it is further submitted that the petitioner is a 54-year-old man and is suffering from various cardiac illness and that his arrest and detention will cause great prejudice to him. it is also submitted that no criminal antecedents have been reported against the petitioner.5. the learned public prosecutor vehemently opposes the grant ofbail. the circumstances of the case are pointed out from records. it is submitted that there are clear allegations against the petitioner though the main overt acts are alleged against accused 1 & 2. however, it is confirmed that no criminal antecedents have been reported against the petitioner.6. having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case andconsidering the fact that no criminal antecedents.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P. FRIDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL 2022 / 11TH CHAITHRA, 1944 BAIL APPL. NO. 505 OF 2022 CRIME NO.1926/2021 OF KANJIRAMKULAM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PETITIONER/3RD ACCUSED: WILLIAM, AGED 54 YEARS PANDAKASHALA PURAYIDOM, KARUMKULAM, PUTHIYATHURA. P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 526 BY ADVS. C.R.SURESH KUMAR AMRUTHA SURESH RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SHO OF KANJIRAMKULAM POLICE STATION, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM,PIN-682 031 OTHER PRESENT: SRI. T. R RANJITH (S.PP) THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.04.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ..2..

ORDER

This is an application for anticipatory bail.

2. The petitioner is the 3rd accused in Crime No. 1926 of 2021 of

Kanjiramkulam Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram District, which was registered alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 452, 294(b), 323, 324, 326, 354 & 506 r/w Sections 34 & 149 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner along

with accused 1 & 2, the sons of the petitioner, trespassed into the house of the de facto complainant and the 1st accused hit the de facto complaint with a small granite rubble, following which, the de facto complainant sustained an injury on his right eye. It is also alleged that the petitioner/3rd accused fisted on the chest and shoulders of the de facto complainant and that the accused 1 and 2 abused the wife of the de facto complainant.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the

petitioner and the de facto complainant belong to the same political party and a dispute arose between the petitioner and the de facto complainant regarding the failure of the petitioner's sons to ..3.. participate in some political campaigns, as a result of which, a false case has been registered against the petitioner and others. It is submitted that the petitioner is absolutely innocent in the matter and that he has been falsely implicated. It is submitted that the main crux of the allegations is against the accused 1 and 2 and not against the petitioner herein. It is further submitted that the petitioner is a 54-year-old man and is suffering from various cardiac illness and that his arrest and detention will cause great prejudice to him. It is also submitted that no criminal antecedents have been reported against the petitioner.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the grant of

bail. The circumstances of the case are pointed out from records. It is submitted that there are clear allegations against the petitioner though the main overt acts are alleged against accused 1 & 2. However, it is confirmed that no criminal antecedents have been reported against the petitioner.

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

considering the fact that no criminal antecedents are reported against the petitioner and also taking into account the fact that the petitioner is a 54-year-old man and is suffering from various ..4.. cardiac related illness, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The custodial interrogation of the petitioner may not be necessary for a proper investigation into the matter.

In the result, this application is allowed and it is directed that the petitioner shall be released on bail, in the event of arrest in connection with Crime No. 1926 of 2021 of Kanjiramkulam Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram District, subject to the following conditions:

(a) Petitioner will 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 arresting officer;

(b) Petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation and shall appear before the investigating officer in Crime No. 1926 of 2021 of Kanjiramkulam Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram District, whenever called upon to do so;

investigation or to influence or intimidate the de-facto complainant or any witness in Crime No. 1926 of 2021 of ..5.. Kanjiramkulam Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram District; (d)Petitioner shall not involve in any other crime while on bail. If any of the aforesaid conditions is violated, the investigating officer in Crime No. 1926 of 2021 of Kanjiramkulam Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram District, may file an application before the jurisdictional court, for cancellation of bail. It is made clear that the grant of bail to the petitioner/3 rd accused will not entitle accused Nos. 1 & 2 to seek anticipatory bail on same terms. Sd/- GOPINATH P. JUDGE bka/02.04.2022

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