Ansal H. O v. State of Kerala

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS ``` ``` FRIDAY, THE 16[TH] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 27TH MAGHA, 1945 BAIL APPL. NO. 1153 OF 2024 ``` ``` CRIME NO.1725/2023 OF PANANGAD POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM ``` ## **`PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2:`** ``` ANSAL H. O AGED 28 YEARS S/O HANEEFA, OTTAPARAMBU (H), MUPPATHADAM P.O ALUVA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683110 ``` ``` BY ADV AMRUTHA P S ``` ## **`RESPONDENT:`** ``` STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 ``` ## **`OTHER PRESENT:`** ``` SR PP SMT SEETHA S ``` ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` B. A No.1153 of 2024 2 **Dated this the 16[th] day of February, 2024** ## **O R D E R** The application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the second accused in Crime No.1725/2023 of the Panangad Police Station, Ernakulam, registered against the accused (two in number) for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 326, 307, 327 and 452 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was arrested on 20.01.2024. 2. The crux of the prosecution case is that: on 20.09.2023, at about 07.30 p.m, the accused 1 and 2, out of their previous animosity towards the defacto complainant, trespassed into the residence of the defacto complainant armed with deadly weapons and beat her father using an iron stick. The first accused beat the B. A No.1153 of 2024 3 father of the de facto complainant on his hands and legs and inflicted fractures and injuries. On seeing the father being beaten up by the accused, the mother of the de facto complainant intervened to save her husband. Then, the accused 1 and 2 also beat and caused injuries to the mother of the de facto complainant. They also caused damage to the household articles. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences. 3. Heard Smt.Amrutha. S, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. Seetha S., the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusations levelled against him. There is no specific overt act alleged against the petitioner. It was the first accused who caused injuries to both the parents of the de facto complainant. The first accused has already been released on statutory bail. The petitioner B. A No.1153 of 2024 4 had approached this Court and filed B.A. No.11068/2023 for an order of pre-arrest bail. By Annexure A1 order, this Court had dismissed the bail application, directing the petitioner to surrender before the Investigating Officer. Even before the petitioner surrendered, he was arrested on 20.01.2024. The petitioner has been in judicial custody since then. The investigation in the case is practically complete, and the recoveries have been effected. The petitioner's further detention is not necessary. Hence, the application may be allowed. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor seriously opposed the application. She contended that there is a specific overt act alleged against the petitioner i.e., he hit the mother of the de facto complainant on her head and she suffered serious injuries. She made available the Wound Certificate Cum Accident Register of the two injured, dated 21.09.2023, issued by the Lakeshore Hospital and Research Centre, Kochi, to substantiate her B. A No.1153 of 2024 5 assertion. She contended that the petitioner had been absconding for a long period of time. It was only on 20.01.2024, he was arrested. The first accused was released on statutory bail. Therefore, the petitioner cannot seek analogy from the said order. Moreover, the petitioner has a criminal antecedent. He is an accused in Crime No.545/2021 of the Cheranalloor Police Station, registered against him for allegedly committing the offence under Section 302 of the IPC. If the petitioner is let off on bail, he would intimidate the witnesses and tamper with the evidence. Therefore, the bail application may be dismissed. 6. The prosecution case is that, on 20.09.2023 at about 07.30 p.m, the accused 1 and 2 trespassed into the house of the defacto complainant with deadly weapons and assaulted the parents of the defacto complainant. Both of them suffered serious injuries, which is evident from the wound certificates handed over by the learned B. A No.1153 of 2024 6 Public Prosecutor. Even though the incident occurred on 20.09.2023, the petitioner was arrested only on 20.01.2024. In the meantime, the first accused was arrested, and let him off on statutory bail. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the investigation in the case, so far as the petitioner is concerned, is in progress and the recoveries are to be effected. Indisputably, the petitioner is an accused in Crime No.545/2021 of the Cheranalloor Police Station, registered against him for allegedly committing the offence under Section 302 of the IPC. 7. In **Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee and Another** [(2010) 14 SCC 496], in paragraph 9, the Honourable Supreme Court has observed as follows: “9. …...... It is well settled that, among other circumstances, the factors to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail are: (i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed B. A No.1153 of 2024 7 the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the accusation: (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail; (v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused; (vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail.” ## 8. Again, the Honourable Supreme Court in **Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan alias Pappu Yadav and another** [AIR 2004 SC 1866] has held thus: “11. The law in regard to grant or refusal of bail is very well settled. The Court granting bail should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. Though at the stage of granting bail a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merit of the case need not be undertaken, there is a need to indicate in such orders reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted particularly where the B. A No.1153 of 2024 8 accused is charged of having committed a serious offence. Any order devoid of such reasons would suffer from non application of mind. It is also necessary for the Court granting bail to consider among other circumstances, the following factors also before granting bail; they are, (a) The nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence; (b) Reasonable apprehension of tampering of the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant; (c) Prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge. See Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh and others (2002(3) SCC 598) and Puran v. Rambilas and another (2001 (6) SCC 338)” 9. On an anxious consideration of the facts, the materials placed on record, the rival submissions made across the bar, and on prima facie comprehending the nature, seriousness, and gravity of the offences alleged against the petitioners, that the investigation in the case, so far as the petitioner is concerned, is in progress, that the petitioner is a person with criminal antecedent, and that the recovery is to be effected, I am not inclined to B. A No.1153 of 2024 9 release the petitioner on bail at this stage because there is a danger of justice being thwarted. The application is meritless, and it is only to be dismissed. Resultantly, the application is dismissed. SD/- **C.S.DIAS, JUDGE** mtk