Robinson vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Oct 30, 2020

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1790989

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/1790989
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr. Justice Ashok Menon
Decided On: Oct 30, 2020
Case Number: Bail Appl./4868/2020

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Robinson

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....scheduled caste and scheduled tribes (prevention of atrocities act), subsequently the offence under the atrocities act has been deleted.2. the prosecution case, in brief, is that on27.06.2019 at about 11 a.m, the applicant hurled abuses at the de facto complainant and thereafter assaulted him with a dangerous weapon like an iron rod, accusing him of peeping in to the bathrooms of his house while his wife was taking bath. the de facto complainant sustained a fracture of his nasal bone, thus the crime was committed and the applicant was implicated.3. the applicant states that the allegations are not true and that the de facto complainant is a 'peeping tom' and has been peeping into the bathrooms of several houses. on the date previous to the alleged occurrence he had peeped into somehouses and he was chased by persons. in the process of his escaping he might have fallen down and sustained some injury. and that it is not due to any assault by the applicant as alleged. theapplicant has no criminal antecedents. he is willing to co-operate with the investigation. hence, he prays that he may be released onanticipatory bail.4. heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned public prosecutor.5. the learned public prosecutor admits that the applicant has no criminal antecedents. theinjury sustained by the de facto complainant is also not life threatening. however the recovery of the iron rod allegedly used by the applicant will have to be made. the applicant is willing to co- operate with the investigation. under the circumstances the application is allowed and the applicant is directed to surrender before the investigating officer within two weeks, and after interrogation in the event of his being arrested, he shall be released on bail on execution of a bond for rs.50,000/-(rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties for the like amount each to the satisfaction.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON FRIDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 8TH KARTHIKA, 1942 CRIME NO.627/2019 OF Pozhiyoor Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram PETITIONER/S: ROBINSON AGED 42 YEARS CHAKKACHIVILAKAM, POZHIYOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.M.T.SURESHKUMAR RESPONDENT/S: STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM SRI.AJITH MURALI SR PP THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30.10.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

Dated this the 30th day of October 2020 This is an application filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C seeking anticipatory bail. Applicant is the sole accused in Crime No.627/2019 of Pozhiyoor Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, for having allegedly committed offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 323, 324, 326 of the IPC and under Section 3(1) (S) of

the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act), subsequently the offence under the atrocities act has been deleted.

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on

27.06.2019 at about 11 a.m, the applicant hurled abuses at the de facto complainant and thereafter assaulted him with a dangerous weapon like an iron rod, accusing him of peeping in to the bathrooms of his house while his wife was taking bath. The de facto complainant sustained a fracture of his nasal bone, thus the crime was committed and the applicant was implicated.

3. The applicant states that the allegations are not true and that the de facto complainant is a 'Peeping Tom' and has been peeping into the bathrooms of several houses. On the date previous to the alleged occurrence he had peeped into some

houses and he was chased by persons. In the process of his escaping he might have fallen down and sustained some injury. And that it is not due to any assault by the applicant as alleged. The

applicant       has   no      criminal      antecedents.      He    is
willing     to    co-operate         with    the       investigation.
Hence,    he     prays      that     he    may    be    released   on

anticipatory bail.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor admits that the applicant has no criminal antecedents. The

injury sustained by the de facto complainant is also not life threatening. However the recovery of the iron rod allegedly used by the applicant will have to be made. The applicant is willing to co- operate with the investigation. Under the circumstances the application is allowed and the applicant is directed to surrender before the investigating officer within two weeks, and after interrogation in the event of his being arrested, he shall be released on bail on execution of a bond for Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties for the like amount each to the satisfaction of the investigating officer and on the following conditions; i. He shall appear before the investigating officer on all Mondays between 9 a.m and 12 noon for a period of two months or till filing of the final report whichever is

earlier. ii. He shall surrender his passport before the jurisdictional court. In case he does not have any passport, file an affidavit to that effect. iii. He shall not tamper with evidence, influence or intimidate witnesses. iv. He shall not get involved in similar offences during the bail period. In the event of violating the bail conditions,

the prosecution shall be at liberty to apply for cancellation of bail before the jurisdictional court. Sd/- ASHOK MENON JUDGE SPK

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2020 Same Parties Robinson vs State of Kerala Same Judge Honourable Mr. Justice Ashok Menon