High CourtsSingle Bench

Santhosh Kumar @ Riju @ Sasi vs State Of Kerala

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 7 January 2022 · Citation: (2022) 01 KL CK 0036

HON’BLE JUDGES
Gopinath P, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 143, 147, 148, 149, 153, 294(b), 308, 323, 324 · Arms Act, 1959 — Section 27
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Bail Application No. 9813 Of 2021
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

36 paragraphs · 703 words

Gopinath P., J

1.

This is an application for regular bail.

2.

The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.1897/2021 of Poojappura Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram District alleging commission of offences

under Sections 143, 147, 148, 294(b), 323, 324, 308 and 153 r/w Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

3.

The allegation against the petitioner is that, on 23.11.2021 at 2.30 pm, the petitioner along with others threatened and attacked certain activists of an

organization known as the Popular Front of India. It is specially alleged that the 1st accused caused a cut injury on the head of the de-facto

complainant using a chopper. The other accused including the petitioner are alleged to have fisted the de-facto complainant and his friend Jafar on

their backs. On the allegation that if the chopper had been used with substantially more force, the same would have resulted in the death of the de-

facto complainant an offence under Section 308 is also alleged against the petitioner and others.

4.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations against the petitioner are absolutely false. It is submitted that the case has been

registered on the basis of political rivalry and that the petitioner is not involved in the matter at all. It is submitted that even if the allegations are true,

the offence under Section 308 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act will not lie as against the petitioner. It is finally submitted that the petitioner has

been in custody from 24.11.2021 and has completed 45 days in custody. It is submitted that further detention of the petitioner is not necessary for the

purpose of investigation into the matter.

5.

The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submits that the petitioner is clearly involved in the matter. It is submitted that the petitioner was

clearly part of an unlawful assembly and the fact that it is the 1st accused who alleged to have used the chopper, by itself, is no reason to hold that the

offence under Section 308 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act is not attracted in so far as the petitioner is concerned. It is submitted that the grant of

bail, at this stage, may affect the progress of investigation.

6.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the further detention of the petitioner is not necessary for the

purpose of proper investigation into Crime No.1897/2021 of Poojapura Police. I also take note of the fact that the specific overt act alleged is against

the 1st accused and that in so far as accused Nos.2 to 10 are concerned the specific allegation against them is that they fisted the de-facto

complainant and his friend. Therefore, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

7.

In the result, this application is allowed and it is directed that the petitioner shall be released on bail, subject to the following conditions:-

(i) The petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the

Jurisdictional Court;

(ii) The petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer in Crime No.1897/2021 of Poojappura Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram District on every Saturday at

9.00 am until further orders;

(iii) The petitioner shall not attempt to contact the de-facto complainant or influence or intimidate the de-facto complainant or any witness in Crime No.1897/2021 of

Poojappura Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram District;

(iv) The petitioner shall not enter the local limits of the Poojappura Police Station where the de-facto complainant is residing except for the purpose of complying with

condition No.(ii) above;

(v) The petitioner shall surrender his passport before the Jurisdictional Court. If the petitioner does not have a passport, he shall execute affidavit to that effect and

file the same before the said court within seven days of release on bail;

(vi) The petitioner shall not involve in any other crime while on bail.

If any of the aforesaid conditions are violated, the investigating officer in Crime No.1897/2021 of Poojappura Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram

District may file an application before the Jurisdictional Court, for cancellation of bail.