Sarath vs the State of Kerala

Sarath vs The State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Feb 16, 2022

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1445247

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/1445247
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr. Justice Gopinath P.
Decided On: Feb 16, 2022
Case Number: Bail Appl./644/2022

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Sarath

Respondent

The State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....of offences under sections 341, 323, 324, 294(b), 506(ii) and 308 r/w. section 34 of the indian penal code.3. allegation against the petitioners is that on26.12.2021, at about 12. 00 pm, the petitioners trespassed into the property of the de facto complainant and abused and attacked him using a chisel, as a result of which the de facto complainant suffered some injuries.4. learned counsel appearing for the petitionerswould submit that the petitioners and the de facto complainant are neighbours and there is a boundary dispute pending between the petitioners and the de facto complainant. it is alleged that owing to the said dispute, on the alleged date of incident, the de facto complainant had trespassed into the house of the petitioners and assaulted the petitioners and their mother, following which annexure-iibail appl. no. 644 of 2022 3 complaint was filed by the mother of the petitioners in respect of which a receipt was also issued by the police. it is submitted that the petitioners are absolutely innocent in the matter and their custodial interrogation is not necessary for the purpose of proper investigation into the matter.5. learned public prosecutor opposes the grant ofbail. learned public prosecutor refers to the wound certificate issued in respect of the de facto complainant and contended that the de facto complainant had suffered injuries on his cheek and beneath his ear. it is submitted that according to the de facto complainant, the injuries were caused by petitioners using a chisel. it is submitted that the petitioners are to be interrogated to complete the investigation.6. having regard to the facts and circumstances ofthe case and considering the nature of the allegations against the petitioners and taking into account the fact that their custodial interrogation is not not necessary for a proper investigation into the matter, i am of the opinion that anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioners bail appl. no. 644 of 2022 4subject to.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P. WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 / 27TH MAGHA, 1943 BAIL APPL. NO. 644 OF 2022 AGAINST THE ORDER IN CRMC 3/2022 OF SESSIONS COURT,THRISSUR CRIME NO.831/2021 OF VARANTHARAPPILLY POLICE STATION PETITIONER/ACCUSED NOS.1 AND 2: 1 SARATH AGED 22 YEARS S/O.RAMAKRISHNAN, KUNNUMMEL HOUSE, UPPUZHI DESOM, VARANTHARAPPILLY P.O., MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 683. 2 PRASANTH AGED 25 YEARS S/O.RAMAKRISHNAN, KUNNUMMEL HOUSE, UPPUZHI DESOM, VARANTHARAPPILLY P.O., MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 683. BY ADV N.L.BITTO RESPONDENT/STATE AND COMPLAINANT: THE STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM - 682 031. SRI. T. R RENJITH (SR. P.P) THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16.02.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: BAIL APPL. NO. 644 OF 2022 2

ORDER

This is an application for anticipatory bail.

2. Petitioners are the accused in Crime No.831/2021

of Varantharappilly police station, alleging commission of offences under Sections 341, 323, 324, 294(b), 506(ii) and 308 r/w. Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Allegation against the petitioners is that on

26.12.2021, at about 12. 00 pm, the petitioners trespassed into the property of the de facto complainant and abused and attacked him using a chisel, as a result of which the de facto complainant suffered some injuries.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners

would submit that the petitioners and the de facto complainant are neighbours and there is a boundary dispute pending between the petitioners and the de facto complainant. It is alleged that owing to the said dispute, on the alleged date of incident, the de facto complainant had trespassed into the house of the petitioners and assaulted the petitioners and their mother, following which Annexure-II

BAIL APPL. NO. 644 OF 2022 3 complaint was filed by the mother of the petitioners in respect of which a receipt was also issued by the police. It is submitted that the petitioners are absolutely innocent in the matter and their custodial interrogation is not necessary for the purpose of proper investigation into the matter.

5. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the grant of

bail. Learned Public Prosecutor refers to the wound certificate issued in respect of the de facto complainant and contended that the de facto complainant had suffered injuries on his cheek and beneath his ear. It is submitted that according to the de facto complainant, the injuries were caused by petitioners using a chisel. It is submitted that the petitioners are to be interrogated to complete the investigation.

6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of

the case and considering the nature of the allegations against the petitioners and taking into account the fact that their custodial interrogation is not not necessary for a proper investigation into the matter, I am of the opinion that anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioners BAIL APPL. NO. 644 OF 2022 4

subject to strict conditions, including a condition that limited custody of the petitioners will be available to the prosecution for the purpose of investigation. In the result, this application is allowed. It is directed that the petitioners shall be released on bail, in the event of arrest in crime No.831/2021 of Varantharappilly police Station subject to the following conditions:-

(i) Petitioners shall execute separate bonds for sums of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) each 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.831/2021 of Varantharappilly Police station at 10.00 am on 21.02.2022 and 22.02.2022 and thereafter, as and when called upon to do so. It is also made clear that the petitioners shall co-operate with the investigation in every manner;

(iii) The petitioners shall not attempt to contact the de

facto complainant or interfere with the investigation or to BAIL APPL. NO. 644 OF 2022 5 influence or intimidate any witness in Crime No.831/2021 of Varantharappilly 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..831/2021 of Varantharappilly police station may file an application before the jurisdictional Court, for cancellation of bail. sd/- GOPINATH P. JUDGE ajt

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