Anees K.V Vs. State of Kerala - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1013195
CourtKerala High Court
Decided OnJul-04-2013
JudgeHONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
AppellantAnees K.V
RespondentState of Kerala
Excerpt:
in the high court of kerala at ernakulam present: the honourable mr.justice s.s.satheesachandran thursday, the 4th day of july 2013 13th ashadha, 1935 bail appl..no. 4628 of 2013 (c) ------------------------------------------ [in crime no. 316/2013 of mayyil police station , kannur district] ................ petitioner/accused: ----------------------------------- anees .k.v, aged 2 years, s/o.majeed, kovvalil house, pamburuthi, p.o.narath, kannur district. by adv. sri.p.u.shailajan. respondent/complainant: -------------------------------------------- state of kerala, represented by station house officer, mayyil police station, kannur district, represented by public prosecutor, high court of kerala, ernakulam. by public prosecutor smt. r. rema. this bail application having come up for admission on 04-07-2013, the court on the same day passed the following: prv. s.s.satheesachandran, j ----------------------------------------- b.a.no.4628 of 2013 ----------------------------------- dated this the 4th day of july, 2013 order petitioner is the accused in crime no.316 of 2013 of mayyil police station registered for offences punishable under sections 341, 323, 324 and 308 r/w. section 308 of the indian penal code. he has filed the above application seeking pre-arrest bail under section 438 of the code of criminal procedure (for short "the code").2. allegation is that petitioner wrongfully restrained the de facto complainant while he was riding on a motor bike, at about 7.45.a.m.on 09.05.2013, at a spot close to pamburuthy bridge in narath. he assaulted him with his bare hands and also with a reaper and caused him injuries. when de facto complainant fell down from the bike, petitioner stabbed him with a knife, and, but, for the warding off that strike the resultant injury would have caused his death and, then, petitioner would have been guilty of the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, is the further allegation to impute the grave offences against petitioner. crime is now under investigation and at this stage, petitioner has filed the above application. b.a.no.4628 o”2. 3. learned counsel for petitioner submits that the grave offence under section 308 i.p.c. has been included with other offences only to keep him under detention after his arrest. he has been falsely implicated in the crime, is the further submission of counsel. the young age of petitioner is also pointed out by counsel to extend him the discretionary relief of pre-arrest bail submitting that he has no criminal antecedents. application is opposed by learned public prosecutor contending that materials gathered by investigating agency disclose complicity of petitioner in the offences imputed.4. case diary has been produced for my perusal. de facto complainant is stated to be a cleaner of a lorry and petitioner, a young man of aged 22 years. previous enmity towards de fato complainant is imputed for the alleged assault on him by petitioner. after looking into the materials covered by case diary with reference to the submissions made by counsel, i find whether petitioner had used a lethal weapon, a knife with another weapon, wooden reaper, in the assault on the victim is a matter that has to be scrutinized in the investigation of the crime. on the facts and circumstances presented in the case, i find arrest and custodial interrogation of petitioner may not be essential for a fair investigation of the rime. petitioner can be b.a.no.4628 o”3. granted pre-arrest bail with direction to co-operate with investigation of the crime. petitioner is directed to appear before the investigating officer at 10.00.a.m.on 09.07.2013, and after interrogation in the event of his arrest in the crime, he is directed to be released on bail on executing a bond for rs.10,000/- (rupees ten thousand only) with one solvent surety for the like sum. he shall also report before the investigating officer so long as investigation continues, if his presence is demanded for its smooth completion by investigating officer. sd/- s.s.satheesachandran, judge true copy p.a.to judge rkm
Judgment:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF JULY 2013 13TH ASHADHA, 1935 Bail Appl..No. 4628 of 2013 (C) ------------------------------------------ [IN CRIME NO. 316/2013 OF MAYYIL POLICE STATION , KANNUR DISTRICT] ................ PETITIONER/ACCUSED: ----------------------------------- ANEES .K.V, AGED 2 YEARS, S/O.MAJEED, KOVVALIL HOUSE, PAMBURUTHI, P.O.NARATH, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.U.SHAILAJAN. RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: -------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER, MAYYIL POLICE STATION, KANNUR DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. R. REMA. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04-07-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Prv. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J ----------------------------------------- B.A.No.4628 of 2013 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of July, 2013 ORDER Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.316 of 2013 of Mayyil Police Station registered for offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324 and 308 r/w. Section 308 of the Indian Penal Code. He has filed the above application seeking pre-arrest bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "the Code").

2. Allegation is that petitioner wrongfully restrained the de facto complainant while he was riding on a motor bike, at about 7.45.a.m.on 09.05.2013, at a spot close to Pamburuthy Bridge in Narath. He assaulted him with his bare hands and also with a reaper and caused him injuries. When de facto complainant fell down from the bike, petitioner stabbed him with a knife, and, but, for the warding off that strike the resultant injury would have caused his death and, then, petitioner would have been guilty of the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, is the further allegation to impute the grave offences against petitioner. Crime is now under investigation and at this stage, petitioner has filed the above application. B.A.No.4628 o”

2. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the grave offence under Section 308 I.P.C. has been included with other offences only to keep him under detention after his arrest. He has been falsely implicated in the crime, is the further submission of counsel. The young age of petitioner is also pointed out by counsel to extend him the discretionary relief of pre-arrest bail submitting that he has no criminal antecedents. Application is opposed by learned Public Prosecutor contending that materials gathered by investigating agency disclose complicity of petitioner in the offences imputed.

4. Case diary has been produced for my perusal. De facto complainant is stated to be a cleaner of a lorry and petitioner, a young man of aged 22 years. Previous enmity towards de fato complainant is imputed for the alleged assault on him by petitioner. After looking into the materials covered by case diary with reference to the submissions made by counsel, I find whether petitioner had used a lethal weapon, a knife with another weapon, wooden reaper, in the assault on the victim is a matter that has to be scrutinized in the investigation of the crime. On the facts and circumstances presented in the case, I find arrest and custodial interrogation of petitioner may not be essential for a fair investigation of the rime. Petitioner can be B.A.No.4628 o”

3. granted pre-arrest bail with direction to co-operate with investigation of the crime. Petitioner is directed to appear before the investigating officer at 10.00.a.m.on 09.07.2013, and after interrogation in the event of his arrest in the crime, he is directed to be released on bail on executing a bond for Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) with one solvent surety for the like sum. He shall also report before the investigating officer so long as investigation continues, if his presence is demanded for its smooth completion by investigating officer. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE True Copy P.A.to Judge RKM