Shan vs State of Kerala

SHAN vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Mar 21, 2022

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1446110

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/1446110
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr. Justice Gopinath P.
Decided On: Mar 21, 2022
Case Number: Bail Appl./737/2022

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

SHAN

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....is described as 2 nd accused in the bail application, the learned public prosecutor states that the petitioner is actually arrayed as the 4th accused.3. the allegation is that the petitioner along with the other accused inthe case attacked the de facto complainant and his brother and caused injuries to them. it is alleged that the 1st accused in the case had attacked the de facto complainant using a knuckle duster and that the 3 rd accused had beaten up one sakeer with a stick. it is also alleged that accused nos.4 to 11 had also attacked the de facto complainant and his brother using sticks and rods.4. the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that thepetitioner is absolutely innocent in the matter. it is submitted that the petitioner is an auto-rickshaw driver whose only role was to drop the 1 st accused to the place where the incident took place. it is submitted that the petitioner had dropped the 1st accused on the belief that he was a bona fide passenger and without knowing that he was intending to attack the de facto complainant and his brother. it is submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the matter and he was present at the site only on account of the fact that the 1 st accused had hired his auto-rickshaw for the purpose of travelling to the place inb.a.no.737/2022 3 question.5. heard the learned public prosecutor also.6. the learned public prosecutor opposes the grant of bail. it issubmitted that going by the contents of the first information statement of the de facto complainant, there are clear allegations against all the accused including the petitioner herein. it is submitted that a thorough investigation is required in the matter as fairly serious injuries were caused to the de facto complainant owing to the attack by the petitioner and the other accused. it is submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to be granted anticipatory bail.7. having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case andconsidering.....

Full Judgment

B.A.No.737/2022 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P. MONDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 30TH PHALGUNA, 1943 BAIL APPL. NO. 737 OF 2022 CRIME NO.122 OF 2022 OF CHADAYAMANGALAM POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT
PETITIONER/ACCUSED (A2): SHAN, S/O. SHAJI AGED 21 YEARS SHAW MANZIL, CHADAYAMANGALAM P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT., PIN - 691534 BY ADV K.V.ANIL KUMAR RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: STATE OF KERALA STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM., PIN - 682031 OTHER PRESENT: SRI. T.R. RENJITH (SR.PP) THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: B.A.No.737/2022 2

ORDER

This is an application for anticipatory bail.

2. The petitioner is the 4th accused in Crime No.122/2022 of

Chadayamangalam Police Station, Kollam District alleging commission of offences under Sections 294(b), 323, 324,m 308, 143, 147 & 148 r/w. Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. Though the petitioner is described as 2 nd accused in the bail application, the learned Public Prosecutor states that the petitioner is actually arrayed as the 4th accused.

3. The allegation is that the petitioner along with the other accused in

the case attacked the de facto complainant and his brother and caused injuries to them. It is alleged that the 1st accused in the case had attacked the de facto complainant using a knuckle duster and that the 3 rd accused had beaten up one Sakeer with a stick. It is also alleged that accused Nos.4 to 11 had also attacked the de facto complainant and his brother using sticks and rods.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the

petitioner is absolutely innocent in the matter. It is submitted that the petitioner is an auto-rickshaw driver whose only role was to drop the 1 st accused to the place where the incident took place. It is submitted that the petitioner had dropped the 1st accused on the belief that he was a bona fide passenger and without knowing that he was intending to attack the de facto complainant and his brother. It is submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the matter and he was present at the site only on account of the fact that the 1 st accused had hired his auto-rickshaw for the purpose of travelling to the place in

B.A.No.737/2022 3 question.

5. Heard the learned Public Prosecutor also.

6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the grant of bail. It is

submitted that going by the contents of the First Information Statement of the de facto complainant, there are clear allegations against all the accused including the petitioner herein. It is submitted that a thorough investigation is required in the matter as fairly serious injuries were caused to the de facto complainant owing to the attack by the petitioner and the other accused. It is submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to be granted anticipatory bail.

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

considering the case put forth by the petitioner that he is only an auto-rickshaw driver, who was hired by the 1 st accused to drop the 1st accused in the place in question, I am of the opinion that the petitioner can be granted anticipatory bail subject to conditions. I have also note that the thrust of the allegations is against accused Nos.1 and 3.

8. In the result, this application is allowed. It is directed that the

petitioner shall be released on anticipatory bail, in the event of arrest in Crime No.122/2022 of Chadayamangalam Police Station subject to the following conditions:-

(i) Petitioner shall execute a separate 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) Petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer in Crime No.122/2022 of Chadayamangalam Police Station at 10 a.m. on 29.3.2022 and B.A.No.737/2022 4 30.3.2022 and thereafter whenever called upon to do so;

(iii) Petitioner shall not attempt to contact the de facto complainant or interfere with the investigation or to influence or intimidate any witness in Crime No.122/2022 of Chadayamangalam Police Station;

(iv) 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.122/2022 of Chadayamangalam Police Station may file an application before the jurisdictional Court for cancellation of bail.

sd/- GOPINATH P. JUDGE acd B.A.No.737/2022 5 APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 737/2022 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure-A A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 122 / 2022 OF CHADAYAMANGALAM POLCIE STATION.

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