Senthilkumar vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Sep 24, 2020

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1802117

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/1802117
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr. Justice P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Decided On: Sep 24, 2020
Case Number: Bail Appl./5794/2020

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Senthilkumar

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....station, idukki district. the above case is registered against the petitioners alleging offence punishable under section 294(b), 324, 308 read with section 34 of indian penal code.3. the prosecution case is that, the first petitionerassaulted the defacto complainant, who is his relative, using a chopper while he was travelling in a scooter. it is alleged that, the incident happened in a public road. the overt acts alleged against the first petitioner is that, he used a chopper and attacked the defacto complainant and the defacto complainant sustained injury.4. heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned public prosecutor. b.a.5794 of 2020 35. the learned counsel for the petitioner submittedthat, the entire allegations against the petitioners are not correct. the learned counsel submitted that, this is a case and counter case. the counter case is registered as crime no.837/2020 before nedunkandam police station. the learned counsel submitted that, only minor offences are added in the counter case, because of the influence of the defacto complainant. the learned counsel submitted that, the petitioners are ready to abide any conditions, if this court grant them bail. the learned counsel submitted that, the petitioners and defacto complainant are close relatives.6. the learned public prosecutor opposed the bailapplication. the learned public prosecutor submitted that, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary. adv. jasmine v. h. appeared for the defacto complainant. the learned counsel for the defacto complainant opposed the bail petition. the learned counsel submitted that, the petitioner used a chopper and attacked the defacto complainant from the public road. the learned counsel submitted that, this court b.a.5794 of 2020 4 may not pass the orders under section 438 of cr.p.c. in this case.7. after hearing both sides, i think the firstpetitioner is not entitled orders under section 438 of cr.p.c. as far as, the second petitioner is.....

Full Judgment

B.A.5794 of 2020 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020 / 2ND ASWINA, 1942 Bail Appl..No.5794 OF 2020 CRIME NO.683/2020 OF Vandanmedu Police Station , Idukki PETITIONER/S: 1 SENTHILKUMAR AGED 36 YEARS S.O. PARAMASIVAM, SENTHILKUMAR ILLAM, PUTHUKAD BHAGOM, PAMPADUMPARA KARA, PAMPADUMPARA VILLAGE, IDUKKI, 2 SUJITHA AGED 28 YEARS W.O. SENTHILKUMAR, SENTHILKUMAR ILLAM, PUTHUKAD BHAGOM, PAMPADUMPARA KARA, PAMPADUMPARA VILLAGE

BY ADVS. SRI.S.RAJEEV SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN SRI.V.VINAY SRI.K.ANAND (A-1921) RESPONDENT/S: STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA OTHER PRESENT: SRI.RENJITH.T.R., PP, SMT.JASMINE.V.H. FOR ADDL.RESPONDENT THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.09.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: B.A.No.5794 of 2020 2

O R D E R

This Bail Application is filed under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code was heard through Video Conference.

2. The petitioners are the accused in Crime

No.683/2020 of Vandanmedu Police Station, Idukki District. The above case is registered against the petitioners alleging offence punishable under section 294(b), 324, 308 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.

3. The prosecution case is that, the first petitioner

assaulted the defacto complainant, who is his relative, using a chopper while he was travelling in a scooter. It is alleged that, the incident happened in a public road. The overt acts alleged against the first petitioner is that, he used a chopper and attacked the defacto complainant and the defacto complainant sustained injury.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. B.A.5794 of 2020 3

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted

that, the entire allegations against the petitioners are not correct. The learned counsel submitted that, this is a case and counter case. The counter case is registered as Crime No.837/2020 before Nedunkandam Police station. The learned counsel submitted that, only minor offences are added in the counter case, because of the influence of the defacto complainant. The learned counsel submitted that, the petitioners are ready to abide any conditions, if this Court grant them bail. The learned counsel submitted that, the petitioners and defacto complainant are close relatives.

6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail

application. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary. Adv. Jasmine V. H. appeared for the defacto complainant. The learned Counsel for the defacto complainant opposed the bail petition. The learned Counsel submitted that, the petitioner used a chopper and attacked the defacto complainant from the public road. The learned counsel submitted that, this Court B.A.5794 of 2020 4 may not pass the orders under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. in this case.

7. After hearing both sides, I think the first

petitioner is not entitled orders under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. As far as, the second petitioner is concerned, she is the wife of the first petitioner, the allegation against the second petitioner is that she handed over the chopper to the first petitioner.

8. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I think the bail application of the second petitioner can be allowed on following conditions.

1. The second petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer within ten days from today and shall undergo interrogation.

2. After interrogation, if the

Investigating Officer propose to arrest the second petitioner, she shall be released on bail executing 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 officer concerned. B.A.5794 of 2020 5

3. The second petitioner shall appear

before the Investigating Officer for interrogation as and when required. The second petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation and shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer.

4. The second Petitioner shall not leave India without permission of the jurisdictional Court.

5. The second petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which she is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which she is suspected.

6. The second petitioner shall

strictly abide by the various guidelines

issued by the State Government and Central Government with respect to keeping of social distancing in the wake of Covid 19 pandemic.

7. If any of the above conditions are violated by the second petitioner, the jurisdictional Court can cancel the bail in accordance to law, even though the bail is granted by this Court. B.A.5794 of 2020 6

12. The bail application of the first petitioner is dismissed. Sd/- P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE NB

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2020 Same Parties Senthilkumar vs State of Kerala Same Judge Honourable Mr. Justice P.V.Kunhikrishnan