High CourtsSingle Bench

Manikandan And Ors vs State Of Kerala

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 16 December 2020 · Citation: (2020) 12 KL CK 0267

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ashok Menon, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 308, 353, 379, 380, 394, 511
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Bail Application No. 7803 Of 2020
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

16 paragraphs · 361 words
1.

The applicants are accused Nos. 1 to 3 in Crime No.527 of 2020 of Marayur Police Station, Idukki, for having allegedly committed offences

punishable under Sections 380, 511 of the IPC. The prosecution case, in brief, is this:

2.

On 12.09.2020, at about 11.30 PM, the applicants along with another accused, attempted to break open the front door of the house of the defacto

complainant. The sound of breaking the door woke up the defacto complainant. He saw the accused fleeing from there. He reported that matter to the

Police, in consequence of which, the crime was registered. The applicants state that they are innocent and the allegations are not true. The defacto

complainant has deliberately implicated them in a false complaint. And, therefore, they are entitled to anticipatory bail.

3.

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicants and the learned Public Prosecutor. The learned Public Prosecutor points out that applicants

Nos. 1 and 2 are involved in many cases. They have criminal antecedents. The 1st accused is involved in a theft case and also in a case coming under

POSCO Act and rape. The 2nd accused is also involved in several crimes, out of which, four are still pending for offences ranging from offences

under Section 353, 379, 394 and 308 of the IPC and offence under the PDPP Act. It is however admitted that the 3rd accused has no criminal

antecedents. Considering the fact that the applicants 1 and 2 are involved in several crimes and have criminal antecedents and the fact that the 3rd

applicant was in their company and identifiable as one of the perpetrators of the crime by the defacto complainant, the applicants are not entitled to the

exceptional remedy of anticipatory bail in this case.

The application is, therefore, dismissed with a direction to the applicants to surrender before the Investigating Officer within two weeks. In the event

of their being arrested, after interrogation and recovery, if any, they shall be produced before the jurisdictional court at the earliest, where they are at

liberty to apply for a regular bail which shall be preferably considered and disposed of on the very same date.