Sheen vs State of Kerala

SHEEN vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Mar 02, 2022

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1444132

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/1444132
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr. Justice Gopinath P.
Decided On: Mar 02, 2022
Case Number: Bail Appl./528/2022

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

SHEEN

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....police station, kollam district alleging commission of offences under sections 341, 323, 324, 326 r/w 34 of indian penal code.3. the allegation against the petitioners is that thepetitioners along with the 2nd accused in the case attacked the de facto complainant (brother-in-law of the 1 st accused/1st petitioner) and caused serious injuries to him.4. the learned counsel appearing for the petitionerswould submit that an absolutely false complaint has been raised by the de facto complainant on account of the fact that the sister of the 1st petitioner had not agreed for a proposal to settle matrimonial disputes between her and the de facto complainant. it is submitted that owing to continuous harassment at the hands of the de facto complainant, the sister of the 1 st petitioner had filed a complaint before the kollam east police station following which the de facto complainant had filed the present complaint alleging that he had been assaulted by the petitioners and the 2 ndaccused in the case. it is submitted that the petitioners are b.a.no.528/2022 3 absolutely innocent in the matter and they have no criminal antecedents and at any rate their custodial interrogation is not necessary for the purposes of a proper investigation in to the matter.5. the learned public prosecutor opposes the grant ofbail. the injuries suffered by the de facto complainant are pointed out to show that the petitioners are not entitled to be granted anticipatory bail at this stage. it is submitted that going by the allegations raised by the de facto complainant, the petitioners together with the 2nd accused had brutally assaulted him, causing serious injuries to him, including fracture on the interior wall of the right orbit. it is submitted that the petitioners are not entitled to be granted anticipatory bail.6. having regard to the facts and circumstances of thecase and taking into the consideration to the fact that there are no criminal antecedents reported against the petitioners and.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P. WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 11TH PHALGUNA, 1943 BAIL APPL. NO. 528 OF 2022 CRIME NO. 26/2022 OF KOLLAM EAST POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT PETITIONERS/A1 AND A3: 1 SHEEN AGED 30 YEARS S/O. LAWRANCE, KANNIYANKADU PALLI PURAYIDOM, KAVANADU (PO), KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2 EMMANUEL, AGED 23 YEARS S/O.VIJAYAN, EMMANUEL BHAVANAM, ST.JOSEPH ISLAND, KAVANADU (PO), KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV N.SUNIL JOSEPH RESPONDENTS/STATE AND COMPLAINANT: 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682031. 2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KOLLAM EAST POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN- 691001. OTHER PRESENT: SMT. SEETHA .S. (SR.PP) THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: B.A.No.528/2022 2

ORDER

This is an application for anticipatory bail

2. The petitioners are accused Nos. 1 and 3 in Crime No. 26/2022 of Kollam East Police Station, Kollam District alleging commission of offences under Sections 341, 323, 324, 326 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code.

3. The allegation against the petitioners is that the

petitioners along with the 2nd accused in the case attacked the de facto complainant (brother-in-law of the 1 st accused/1st petitioner) and caused serious injuries to him.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners

would submit that an absolutely false complaint has been raised by the de facto complainant on account of the fact that the sister of the 1st petitioner had not agreed for a proposal to settle matrimonial disputes between her and the de facto complainant. It is submitted that owing to continuous harassment at the hands of the de facto complainant, the sister of the 1 st petitioner had filed a complaint before the Kollam East Police Station following which the de facto complainant had filed the present complaint alleging that he had been assaulted by the petitioners and the 2 nd

accused in the case. It is submitted that the petitioners are B.A.No.528/2022 3 absolutely innocent in the matter and they have no criminal antecedents and at any rate their custodial interrogation is not necessary for the purposes of a proper investigation in to the matter.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the grant of

bail. The injuries suffered by the de facto complainant are pointed out to show that the petitioners are not entitled to be granted anticipatory bail at this stage. It is submitted that going by the allegations raised by the de facto complainant, the petitioners together with the 2nd accused had brutally assaulted him, causing serious injuries to him, including fracture on the interior wall of the right orbit. It is submitted that the petitioners are not entitled to be granted anticipatory bail.

6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the

case and taking into the consideration to the fact that there are no criminal antecedents reported against the petitioners and also considering the fact that there appear to be matrimonial disputes between the sister of the 1st petitioner and the de facto complainant, I am of the view that the petitioners can be granted

anticipatory bail subject to the following conditions. I am also convinced that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner may not be necessary for a proper investigation. B.A.No.528/2022 4 In the result, this application is allowed. It is directed that the petitioners shall be released on anticipatory bail, in the event of arrest in Crime No. 26/2022 of Kollam East Police Station, Kollam District subject to the following conditions:- i. Petitioners shall execute separate bonds for sums 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. Petitioners shall appear before the investigating officer in Crime No. 26/2022 of Kollam East Police Station, Kollam District as and when summoned to do so; iii. Petitioners shall not attempt to contact the de facto complainant or interfere with the investigation or to influence or intimidate any witness in Crime No. 26/2022 of Kollam East Police Station, Kollam District iv. Petitioners shall not involve in any other crime while on bail.

B.A.No.528/2022 5 If any of the aforesaid conditions are violated, the Investigating officer in Crime No. 26/2022 of Kollam East Police Station, Kollam District may file an application before the jurisdictional Court for cancellation of bail. Sd/- ats GOPINATH P. JUDGE

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