Full Judgment
BAIL APPL. NO. 5870 OF 2021 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V. FRIDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 9TH ASWINA, 1943 BAIL APPL. NO. 5870 OF 2021 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMC 2351/2020 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT,TRIVANDRUM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM (CRIME NO.2703 OF 2020 OF VALIYAMALA POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM) PETITIONER SUJITH AGED 29 YEARS S/O. SUNDARAN, THADATHARIKATHU VEEDU, PERILA, CHULLIMANOOR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN- 695541. BY ADV T.R.RAJAN RESPONDENTS 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682031. 2 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VALIYAMALA POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-695547. OTHER PRESENT: SMT. SREEJA.V- SR.PP THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.10.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: BAIL APPL. NO. 5870 OF 2021 2
ORDER
The petitioner is the first accused in Crime No.2703/2021 of
Valiyamala Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 324, 326 and 506 (ii) read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. Apprehending arrest in connection with this crime this application has been moved by the petitioner under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. The prosecution allegation is that at about 6.30 p.m on
18.11.2020 this petitioner along with the other accused have formed themselves into an unlawful assembly, armed with deadly weapons in prosecution of the common object, wrongfully restrained the defacto complainant and brutally attacked him causing fatal injuries including fracture and thereby committed the aforesaid offences.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well the learned Public Prosecutor.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has raised a plea of false implication. He has submitted that he has not committed any BAIL APPL. NO. 5870 OF 2021 3
offence as alleged by the prosecution. It is also pointed out by him that accused Nos.2 to 5 had already been granted pre-arrest bail by this court and hence, this petitioner is also entitled to get an order of pre- arrest bail.
5. On the other hand the learned Public Prosecutor has opposed
the application contending that this petitioner is having criminal antecedents as he is involved in 3 other cases and his application by the learned Sessions Judge was dismissed mainly pointing out that he had indulged in certain cases.
6. It is true that the accused Nos.2 to 5 had already been
granted pre-arrest bail subject to certain conditions by this court. The accused Nos.2 to 5 have no criminal antecedents. But the case of this petitioner is different as he is involved in 3 other crimes. Of course out of the 3 crimes, 1 crime is registered under the Motor Vehicles Act and Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code. But the other 2 crimes are different and Crime No.564/2019 is under Section 294(b), 323 , 324 read with Section 34 of the IPC. So no doubt this petitioner is having criminal antecedents. Moreover the defacto complainant was attacked
BAIL APPL. NO. 5870 OF 2021 4 by this petitioner along with the other accused with deadly weapons such as sword and iron pipe. Considering the nature of the accusations levelled against the
petitioner and also the fact that he is having criminal antecedents, I am inclined to dispose of this petition directing him to surrender before the investigating officer on 8.10.2021 between 10.30 a.m and 11.30 a.m. Upon his surrender after interrogation and recovery if any, arrest has to be recorded and he has to be produced before the jurisdictional court on the very same day. If an application for bail is moved, the learned jurisdictional court shall consider and dispose of the petition on merits at the earliest preferably on the very same day.
The bail application is disposed of accordingly. Sd/- SHIRCY V. JUDGE smm