Amruth Dev vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Jan 28, 2022

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1445607

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/1445607
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr. Justice Gopinath P.
Decided On: Jan 28, 2022
Case Number: Bail Appl./684/2022

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Amruth Dev

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 341, 294 (b), 324 and 308 read with section 149 of the indian penal code.2. the allegation against the petitioner is that he along with the otheraccused in the case has attempted to attack one nidhin, relative of the de facto complainant on 19-10-2021 at about 9.45 p.m. it is alleged that when the de facto complainant intervened in the matter the petitioner and the other accused attacked the de facto complainant causing injuries to him.3. the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there are nospecific allegations against the petitioner. it is submitted that going by the first information statement of the de facto complainant it is accused nos.1 & 2 who attacked using an axe etc. it is submitted that the only allegation against the petitioner is that he had kicked and inflicted blows on the de facto complainant using his hands. it is submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 17-10-2021 and his continued detention is not necessary for the purposes of any investigation.4. the learned public prosecutor vehemently opposes the grant ofbail. he states that there are 7 criminal cases registered against the petitioner alleging commission of various offences. it is submitted that there are specific allegations against the petitioner and since the petitioner had attacked the de b.a. no.684/2022 -3- facto complainant in furtherance of a common intention and after forming an unlawful assembly, the question of specific overt act does not arise. it is submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to bail.5. the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in respect of 7cases now alleged to be criminal antecedents against the petitioner, the petitioner is accused only in 3 cases. it is submitted that there is a case registered against the petitioner under section 308 of the indian penal code. there are two other cases are in respect of offences under section 118 (e) of the kerala police act. it is submitted that rest of.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P. FRIDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 8TH MAGHA, 1943 BAIL APPL. NO. 684 OF 2022 Crime No.1641/2021 of Chingavanam Police Station PETITIONER/3rd ACCUSED: AMRUTH DEV, S/O. T.S. DEVADAS, AGED 27 YEARS, THENGANODIYIL HOUSE, ITHITHANAM P.O. KOTTAYAM-686 535. BY ADVS. AJAYA KUMAR. G M.JAYAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT/STATE/COMPLAINANT: 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031. 2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER, CHINGAVANAM POLICE STATION, CHINGAVANAM P.O., KOTTAYAM-686 531. OTHER PRESENT: SRI. NOUSHAD K.A (SR.PP) THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28.01.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: B.A. No.684/2022 -2-

ORDER

The petitioner is the 3rd accused in Crime No.1641/2021 of Chingavanam Police Station, Kottayam District alleging commission of offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 341, 294 (b), 324 and 308 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The allegation against the petitioner is that he along with the other

accused in the case has attempted to attack one Nidhin, relative of the de facto complainant on 19-10-2021 at about 9.45 p.m. It is alleged that when the de facto complainant intervened in the matter the petitioner and the other accused attacked the de facto complainant causing injuries to him.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there are no

specific allegations against the petitioner. It is submitted that going by the First Information Statement of the de facto complainant it is accused Nos.1 & 2 who attacked using an axe etc. It is submitted that the only allegation against the petitioner is that he had kicked and inflicted blows on the de facto complainant using his hands. It is submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 17-10-2021 and his continued detention is not necessary for the purposes of any investigation.

4. The learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the grant of

bail. He states that there are 7 criminal cases registered against the petitioner alleging commission of various offences. It is submitted that there are specific allegations against the petitioner and since the petitioner had attacked the de B.A. No.684/2022 -3- facto complainant in furtherance of a common intention and after forming an unlawful assembly, the question of specific overt act does not arise. It is submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to bail.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in respect of 7

cases now alleged to be criminal antecedents against the petitioner, the petitioner is accused only in 3 cases. It is submitted that there is a case registered against the petitioner under Section 308 of the Indian Penal Code. There are two other cases are in respect of offences under Section 118 (e) of the Kerala Police Act. It is submitted that rest of the cases relates to the 2 nd accused and not to the petitioner.

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

considering the nature of the allegations against the petitioner and also considering the fact that the other accused in the case have already been released on bail after about two days in custody, I am of the opinion that the petitioner can also be granted bail subject to conditions. 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) The petitioner shall 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 jurisdictional Court; B.A. No.684/2022 -4-

(ii) The Petitioner shall report before the Investigating officer in Crime No.1641/2021 of Chingavanam Police Station on every Saturday at 11 a.m until filing of final report in the aforesaid crime;

(iii) The petitioner shall not attempt to interfere with the investigation, influence or intimidate the de facto complainant or any witness in Crime No.1641/2021 of Chingavanam 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.1641/2021 of Chingavanam Police Station may file an application before the jurisdictional Court for cancellation of bail. Sd/- GOPINATH P. JUDGE AMG

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