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.

Sandeep vs State of Kerala

Sandeep vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Feb 17, 2022
~4 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1444929

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./610/2022

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Sandeep

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....anchal police station, kollam district alleging commission of offences under section 341, 294(b), 323, 324, 308, 427, 447 and 334 of the ipc.2. the allegation against the petitioner is that, on02.01.2022, the accused nos. 1 and 2 had attacked the defacto complainant and his friends. it is alleged that the first accused hit the defacto complainant with an iron board and the first and second accused attacked the friend of the defacto complainant and third and fourth accused had restrained the defacto complainant enabling the others to commit the offence.3. learned counsel for the petitioner submits thatpetitioner is a 19 year old boy who is a polytechnic student. it is submitted that the case against the petitioner is limited to the allegation that he along with the third accused had restrained the defacto complainant. it is submitted that the petitioner was dragged in the case only on account of the fact that he is theneighbor of the second accused. it is submitted that the petitioner had no occasion to attack the defacto complainant or the brother of the defacto complainant or to restrain the defacto complainant in any manner. it is submitted that custodialinterrogation of the case is not necessary considering the factsand circumstances of the case.4. heard the learned public prosecutor also. learned public prosecutor points out the circumstances of the case appearing from the record. it is pointed out that defacto complainant has given a clear statement that the petitioner wasalso involved in restraining the defacto complainant. it is submitted that though the allegation of attack is against the first and second accused, since the offence is committed in furtherance of a common intention, the petitioner is also equally guilty along with the other accused.5. having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and taking a lenient view, considering the fact that the petitioner is a 19 year old boy, and being convinced thatcustodial interrogation is not.....

Full Judgment

1IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P. THURSDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 / 28TH MAGHA, 1943 PETITIONER: SANDEEP AGED 19 YEARS SWAPNA BHAVAN, ALAYAMON P.O, ANCHAL, PUNALUR TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT KOLLAM, PIN - 691306 BY ADVS. S.SREEJITH Subhash Syriac RESPONDENT: STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 BY ADV PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. SEETHA. S. (SR.PP) THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.02.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.10/2022 of Anchal Police Station, Kollam district alleging commission of offences under Section 341, 294(b), 323, 324, 308, 427, 447 and 334 of the IPC.

2. The allegation against the petitioner is that, on

02.01.2022, the accused Nos. 1 and 2 had attacked the defacto complainant and his friends. It is alleged that the first accused hit the defacto complainant with an iron board and the first and second accused attacked the friend of the defacto complainant and third and fourth accused had restrained the defacto complainant enabling the others to commit the offence.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

petitioner is a 19 year old boy who is a polytechnic student. It is submitted that the case against the petitioner is limited to the allegation that he along with the third accused had restrained the defacto complainant. It is submitted that the petitioner was dragged in the case only on account of the fact that he is the

neighbor of the second accused. It is submitted that the petitioner had no occasion to attack the defacto complainant or the brother of the defacto complainant or to restrain the defacto complainant in any manner. It is submitted that custodial

interrogation of the case is not necessary considering the facts

and circumstances of the case.

4. Heard the learned Public Prosecutor also. Learned Public Prosecutor points out the circumstances of the case appearing from the record. It is pointed out that defacto complainant has given a clear statement that the petitioner was

also involved in restraining the defacto complainant. It is submitted that though the allegation of attack is against the first and second accused, since the offence is committed in furtherance of a common intention, the petitioner is also equally guilty along with the other accused.

5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and taking a lenient view, considering the fact that the petitioner is a 19 year old boy, and being convinced that

custodial interrogation is not necessary for a proper investigation, I am of the opinion that the petitioner can be granted anticipatory bail subject to conditions.

6. In the result, this bail application is allowed. It is

directed that the petitioner shall be released on anticipatory bail, in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No.10/2022 of Anchal Police Station subject to the following conditions:-

(i) The 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) The petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer as in Crime No.10/2022 of Anchal Police Station as and when called upon to do so;

(iii) The petitioner shall not attempt to interfere with the investigation, influence or intimidate any witness in Crime No.10/2022 of Anchal Police Station;

(iv) The 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 Anchal Police Station may file an application before the jurisdictional Court for cancellation of bail.

Sd/- GOPINATH P. JUDGE AJ APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 610/2022 PETITIONER ANNEXURES AnnexureA1 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR AND FIS IN CRIME NO. AnnexureA2 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 17.1.2022 FILED BY PETITIONER’S MOTHER BEFORE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOTTARAKKARA

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial