Abhijith A.K., Amal Dev.T., Libin Lal v. State of Kerala
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- A. Badharudeen
- Judgment Date
- 2023-03-10
- Court Decision / Holding
- The petition stands allowed and the petitioners are released on bail as under: i) Accused Nos.2 and 4 shall surrender before the Investigating Officer within ten days from today; on surrender the IO may question the petitioners and recover the stone allegedly used by the 2nd accused during deemed custody. ii) On such production, the jurisdictional court shall release them on bail on executing bond for Rs.30,000/- with two solvent sureties, to the satisfaction of the court. iii) Petitioners shall cooperate with the investigation and shall be available for interrogation as directed by the IO. iv) Petitioners shall not intimidate witnesses or interfere with the investigation. v) If they commit any offence during the currency of bail, the bail may be cancelled.
- Final Disposition
- Petition allowed; anticipatory bail granted to accused Nos.2 and 4 on stated terms.
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- ABHIJITH.A.K
- AMAL DEV.T
- LIBIN LAL
Respondents
- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • P.S. BINU ZUBAIR PULIKKOOL
Counsels for Respondents
- • Public Prosecutor
Case Synopsis & Summary
This is an anticipatory bail petition filed by accused Nos. 2 to 4 in Crime No.393/2022 of Edacherry Police Station, Kozhikode. The prosecution contends that on 28.12.2022 around 22:00 hours, the accused formed into an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons to assault the defacto complainant, resulting in serious injuries including a fracture. The First Information Statement (FIS) and medical records indicate the following roles: the 1st accused beat the complainant on the right wrist with a wooden rafter; the 2nd accused assaulted the complainant on the nose and chin using a stone; the 3rd accused’s alleged role is not detailed in the FIS; the 4th accused kicked the complainant and others. The defacto complainant initially stated the injuries occurred from a fall during the Thira festival but later admitted an attack by the petitioners. Wound certificates show multiple injuries, including an incised wound on the tongue and a chin laceration, with a right wrist fracture. The court notes inconsistencies in the complainant’s versions and observes that the dispute appears festival-related. It also finds the investigation can proceed without custodial interrogation. Thus, the court grants anticipatory bail to accused Nos.2 and 4 with conditions: surrender within ten days, cooperation, no witness intimidation, and production on arrest with bond; the 2nd accused is to facilitate recovery of the stone.”
Provisions of Law Cited
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The petitioners contended that they have consistently cooperated with the investigation and that there is no necessity for custodial interrogation since the facts point to a festival-related dispute with no likelihood of flight or tampering with evidence. They argued that the 1st accused alone would have caused the injury on the complainant’s right wrist, while the 2nd accused’s role was limited to a stone hit that caused facial injuries; the 3rd accused’s role was not clearly detailed in the FIS; and the 4th accused simply kicked, with no evidence of premeditation. They claimed inconsistencies in the complainant’s statements (initial fall claim, then assault) and urged that the dispute is local and festival-driven rather than a planned crime. They are ready to surrender and permit the IO to question them in deemed custody, with the stone allegedly used to be recovered. The court is urged to grant anticipatory bail to maintain the integrity of the investigation and avoid unnecessary imprisonment pending trial.
Contentions of Respondents
The Public Prosecutor submitted that the case involves an armed unlawful assembly with multiple injuries, as detailed in the FIR and medical records. The FIS delineates the accused’s roles, indicating sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, and 326 read with 149 IPC. In light of these facts, custodial interrogation is necessary to secure evidence, prevent tampering, and advance a robust inquiry. Granting anticipatory bail at this stage could impede the investigation and affect witnesses. The seriousness of injuries and the required dental/maxillofacial consultations support an ongoing inquiry rather than immediate release. Therefore, denial of anticipatory bail or imposing stringent conditions is urged.”},
Diagnostic Tool
Does this judgment govern your specific facts?
Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Abhijith A.K., Amal Dev.T., Libin Lal v. State of Kerala and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.
Extracted Judgment Text
Exact text extracted from official judgment records.