Ajmal vs State of Kerala

AJMAL vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Oct 30, 2020

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1807075

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/1807075
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr. Justice Ashok Menon
Decided On: Oct 30, 2020
Case Number: Bail Appl./6267/2020

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

AJMAL

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....34 ipc. subsequently, offence under section 465 ipc was also incorporated.3. the prosecution case, in brief is thus:on 28.5.2020 at about 5 p.m., the applicant and the other co- accused were sitting at a culvert adjacent to murikkumkavu. the de facto complainant and his friend allegedly questioned the presence of the accused persons there at that time. irked by that the applicant and the other co accused hurled abuses at the de facto complainant and his friend, wrongfully restrained and assaulted them with dangerous weapons, like beer bottle and knife, causing caused injuries to them. theinjuries could have proved fatal had they not evaded it. thus they attempted to commit culpable homicide not amounting to murder in furtherance of their common intention.4. the applicant states that he is innocent and that hehas no criminal antecedents. the only overt act attributed to him is that he had pushed the de facto complainant. he was also not wielding any weapon, which needs to be recovered from him.5. heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicant and the learned public prosecutor.6. the learned public prosecutor submits that theapplicant came there on a motor cycle which was bearing a false registration number and that is the reason why the offence under section 465 ipc has been added.7. after having considered the arguments advanced byboth sides and on perusal of the records available, i find that the applicant has no criminal antecedents. the third accused was arrested and released on bail. the overt acts of causing hurt to the de facto complainant and his friend are attributed to accused 1 and 4. the first accused had hit the de facto complainant on his head with a beer bottle causing an injury which required to be sutured with 12 stitches. the defacto complainant's friend was also caused a hurt by the fourth accused using a knife. since the applicant was not using any weapon, there is nothing to be recovered from him. the motorcycle has also been.....

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 Bail Appl..No.6267 OF 2020 CRIME NO.1446/2020 OF Kottiyam Police Station , Kollam PETITIONER/A2: AJMAL AGED 27 YEARS AJINA MANZIL, KOTTIYAM P.O., ADICHANALLOOR VILLAGE, KOLLAM BY ADVS. SHRI.GEORGE SEBASTIAN SRI.ARUN LUCKOSE ABRAHAM RESPONDENT/STATE: STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682031. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR OTHER PRESENT: SRI.C.N.PRABHAKARAN SR PP THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30.10.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

O R D E R

Dated this the 30th day of October 2020 This is an application seeking anticipatory bail filed under Section 438 Cr.PC.

2. The applicant is the second accused in Crime No.1446/2020 of Kottiyam Police Station for having allegedly committed offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 341, 323, 324 and 308 read with Section 34 IPC. Subsequently, offence under Section 465 IPC was also incorporated.

3. The prosecution case, in brief is thus:

On 28.5.2020 at about 5 p.m., the applicant and the other co- accused were sitting at a culvert adjacent to Murikkumkavu. The de facto complainant and his friend allegedly questioned the presence of the accused persons there at that time. Irked by that the applicant and the other co accused hurled abuses at the de facto complainant and his friend, wrongfully restrained and assaulted them with dangerous weapons, like beer bottle and knife, causing caused injuries to them. The

injuries could have proved fatal had they not evaded it. Thus they attempted to commit culpable homicide not amounting to murder in furtherance of their common intention.

4. The applicant states that he is innocent and that he

has no criminal antecedents. The only overt act attributed to him is that he had pushed the de facto complainant. He was also not wielding any weapon, which needs to be recovered from him.

5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicant and the learned Public Prosecutor.

6. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the

applicant came there on a motor cycle which was bearing a false registration number and that is the reason why the offence under Section 465 IPC has been added.

7. After having considered the arguments advanced by

both sides and on perusal of the records available, I find that the applicant has no criminal antecedents. The third accused was arrested and released on bail. The overt acts of causing hurt to the de facto complainant and his friend are attributed to accused 1 and 4. The first accused had hit the de facto complainant on his head with a beer bottle causing an injury which required to be sutured with 12 stitches. The defacto complainant's friend was also caused a hurt by the fourth accused using a knife. Since the applicant was not using any weapon, there is nothing to be recovered from him. The motor

cycle has also been taken into custody. Hence, for that purpose also custodial interrogation of the applicant may not be necessary. Considering the present pandemic situation, I find that the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail for the reason that he is not likely to abscond or there is no possibility that he may not cooperate with the investigation.

In the result, the bail application is allowed and the applicant is directed to surrender before the investigating officer within two weeks. After interrogation and recovery, if any, in the event of his being arrested, he shall be released on bail on execution of bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the investigating officer, and on the following further conditions:

(i) He shall appear before the investigating officer as and when called for and co-operate with the investigation.

(ii) He shall not tamper with evidence or intimidate or influence the witnesses.

(iii) He shall not get involved in any similar offence

during the currency of the bail. In case of breach of any of the above bail conditions, the prosecution is at liberty to approach the jurisdictional court for cancellation of the bail. Sd/- ASHOK MENON JUDGE jg

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