High CourtsSingle Bench

Shameer vs State Of Kerala

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 24 June 2021 · Citation: (2021) 06 KL CK 0361

HON’BLE JUDGES
Dr. Kauser Edappagath, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 438 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 34, 294(b), 308, 323, 452
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Bail Appl. No. 4880 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

23 paragraphs · 447 words

Dr. Kauser Edappagath, J

1.

This is the 2nd bail application for anticipatory bail moved by the 1st accused in Crime No.72/2021 of Poonthura Police Station.

2.

The offences alleged are under Sections 323, 308, 294(b), 452 r/w Section 34 of the IPC.

3.

The prosecution case in short is that on 25.01.2021 at about 3 a.m., the petitioner trespassed into the house of the defacto complainant and

voluntarily caused hurt with a knife to the aunt of the defacto complainant as well as to the brother-in-law of the defacto complainant. Thereafter, the

petitioner brutally manhandled the defacto complainant and stabbed on his chest with a knife with intention to kill him and after the incident, he

escaped from the scene of occurrence in the scooter driven by the 2nd accused.

4.

Heard both sides.

5.

This Court as per order dated 27.4.2021 in B.A.No.1807/2021 has already found that the allegations made against the petitioner are very serious in

nature and it prima facie show a pre-meditated criminal act on his part. Considering the allegations levelled against the petitioner and the stage of

investigation, this Court declined to exercise jurisdiction vested it under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. This is the second bail application for pre-arrest

bail. No change of circumstance has been pointed out, except the ground of 2nd wave of Covid-19.

6.

The learned counsel for the petitioner relying on the suo moto W.P(C).No.1/2020 regarding contagion of Covid 19 virus in prisons, has argued that

the petitioner is entitled for the benefit of the said decision. As per the said decision, the Supreme Court only directed the States to constitute a High

powered Committee to implement measures to de-congest prisons. The petitioner cannot be heard to contend that he is entitled for pre-arrest bail

based on the said decision. The fact of 2nd wave of Covid 19 cannot be treated as a change of circumstance to consider the anticipatory bail

application for the 2nd time.

7.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is prepared to surrender before the Investigating Officer or the Jurisdictional

Magistrate. In view of the said submission, this bail application is disposed as follows:

i. The petitioner shall surrender before the Investigating Officer within one week from today.

ii. After interrogation of the petitioner by the Investigating Officer, in the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be produced before the Jurisdictional Magistrate. On

such production, the jurisdictional Magistrate shall decide on the bail application, if any, moved by the petitioner on the same day itself.

iii. Of course, while considering the said bail application, the learned Magistrate is free to consider the pandemic situation prevailing in the State.