High CourtsSingle Bench

ANSU, S/O. SAJEEV Vs THE STATE OF KERALA

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 16 February 2018 · Citation: (2018) 02 KL CK 0027

HON’BLE JUDGES
R. Narayana Pisharadi
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
<a href=3863>Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973</a>, <a href=3863-438>Section 438</a> - Direction for grant of bail to person apprehending arrest · <a href=1767>Indian Penal Code, 1860</a>, <a href=1767-144>Section 144</a>, <a href=1767-147>Section
CASE NUMBER
7907 of 2017
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

26 paragraphs · 514 words
1.

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

2.

The petitioners are accused 1 to 7 in the case registered as Crime No.1597/2017 of Sooranadu Police Station under Sections 143, 144, 147,

148, 323, 324 and 326 read with 149 IPC. The prosecution case is that on 18.10.2017, at about 23.00 hours, while cultural programmes were

going on in connection with the anniversary of a club at the place Chenchirakkuzhi, the accused together attacked the de facto complainant with

deadly weapons and that they voluntarily caused grievous hurt to him by causing fracture to his right femur. It is alleged that the first and the second

accused beat the de facto complainant with iron rods and the other accused beat him with their hands and kicked him with their legs.

3.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the report of the Investigating Officer and also the

Case Diary.

4.

On a perusal of the First Information Statement given to the police by the de facto complainant it is seen that the first accused Anshad @ Ansu

and the second accused Shefeek S/o Sainudeen were the persons who beat the de facto complainant with iron rods causing fracture to his right

femur. Considering the nature of the overt acts committed by these petitioners, I find that the discretion of the court cannot be exercised in favour

of these persons to grant them pre-arrest bail.

5.

However, the case against the other petitioners stand on a different footing. The allegation against them is only that they beat and kicked the de

facto complainant with their hands and legs. Custodial interrogation of them appears to be not necessary to have an effective investigation.

Considering the minor role played by these petitioners in the incident, I find that the discretion of the court can be exercised in their favour to grant

them pre arrest bail.

In the result, the prayer for granting pre-arrest bail to petitioners 1 and 2 is rejected. The prayer for granting pre-arrest bail to the other petitioners

is allowed and it is ordered as follows:

i. Petitioners 3 to 7 shall be released on bail on executing a bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand only) each with two sureties each

for the like amount in the event of their arrest by police in Crime No.1597/2017 of Sooranadu Police Station.

ii. Petitioners 3 to 7 shall appear before the Investigating Officer between 9.00 AM and 11.00 AM on all Saturdays for a period of two months

after being released on bail.

iii.Petitioners 3 to 7 shall not influence or intimidate the de facto complainant and the other prosecution witnesses in the case. They shall not make

any attempt to tamper with the evidence in the case.

iv. Petitioners 3 to 7 shall not leave the State of Kerala without the prior permission of the jurisdictional court concerned.

v. Petitioners 3 to 7 shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when directed in writing to do so.