Syam Kumar T.S vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Dec 29, 2020

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1828921

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/1828921
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr. Justice K.Haripal
Decided On: Dec 29, 2020
Case Number: Bail Appl./8269/2020

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Syam Kumar T.S

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....no.8269 of 2020 -----------------------------------------------orderthis is an application for anticipatory bail moved under section 438 of the code of criminal procedure.2. the petitioners are the first and thirdaccused in crime no.1246 of 2020 of mathilakam police station registered alleging offence punishable under sections 341, 324, 294(b), 308 read with section 34 of indian penal code.3. the allegation is that the petitioners infurtherance of their common intention to attack the de facto complainant, on 08.11.2020 at 06.00 pm assaulted the de facto complainant using an iron rod and caused him injuries. the place of the occurrence is near the mathilakam ayinikkal temple.4. heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned public prosecutor.5. the allegation against the petitioners are serious in nature. it appears that they had, in furtheranceof common intention, assaulted and injured the de facto complainant using iron rod etc. and made attempts against his life. in the nature of the allegations, custodial interrogation of the petitioners cannot be dispensed with.having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, i am not inclined to grant pre- arrest bail to the petitioners. however, having regard to the submissions of the learned counsel, i deem it appropriate to dispose of the application permitting the petitioners to surrender before the investigating officer within ten days from today and after interrogation, if arrested, they shall be produced before the court on the same day and the jurisdictional magistrate will consider the feasibility of considering the application for bail with promptitude.subject to the above, the application is dismissed. sd/- k.haripal, judge dk

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARIPAL TUESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2020 / 8TH POUSHA, 1942 CRIME NO.1246/2020 OF MATHILAKAM POLICE STATION PETITIONERS/ACCUSED: 1 SYAM KUMAR T.S AGED 23 YEARS SON OF SHAKTHIDHARAN, THOTTIPULLY HOUSE, MATHILAKAM VILLAGE, THRISSUR, PIN - 680685 2 MUHAMMED ALI BADUSHA P.A AGED 22 YEARS SON OF ASHRAF P.B, PERIYANGAT HOUSE, PAPPINIVATTAM VILLAGE, KODUNGALLUR TALUK, PIN - 680685 BY ADVS. SRI.ABRAHAM MATHAN SRI.P.P.HARRIS SRI.SOHAIL AHAMMED HARRIS P.P. RESPONDENT: STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 BY SRI. C N PRABHAKARAN, SR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29.12.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Bail Application No.8269 of 2020 -----------------------------------------------

ORDER

This is an application for anticipatory bail moved under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. The petitioners are the first and third

accused in Crime No.1246 of 2020 of Mathilakam Police Station registered alleging offence punishable under Sections 341, 324, 294(b), 308 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.

3. The allegation is that the petitioners in

furtherance of their common intention to attack the de facto complainant, on 08.11.2020 at 06.00 pm assaulted the de facto complainant using an iron rod and caused him injuries. The place of the occurrence is near the Mathilakam Ayinikkal Temple.

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

5. The allegation against the petitioners are serious in nature. It appears that they had, in furtherance

of common intention, assaulted and injured the de facto complainant using iron rod etc. and made attempts against his life. In the nature of the allegations, custodial interrogation of the petitioners cannot be dispensed with.

Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to grant pre- arrest bail to the petitioners. However, having regard to the submissions of the learned counsel, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the application permitting the petitioners to surrender before the investigating officer within ten days from today and after interrogation, if arrested, they shall be produced before the court on the same day and the Jurisdictional Magistrate will consider the feasibility of considering the application for bail with promptitude.

Subject to the above, the application is dismissed. Sd/- K.HARIPAL, JUDGE DK

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2020 Same Parties Syam Kumar T.S vs State of Kerala Same Judge Honourable Mr. Justice K.Haripal