Mahesh, Kaladhar, and Sunil Babu v. State of Kerala

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: A. Badharudeen
Judgment Date: 2023-02-14
Court Decision / Holding: The third accused’s anticipatory bail plea is dismissed. Anticipatory bail for accused Nos. 1 and 2 is allowed on conditions: (i) they shall surrender before the Investigating Officer within ten days; (ii) on arrest, they shall be produced before the jurisdictional court on the date of arrest and released on bail on bond of Rs. 30,000 with two solvent sureties; (iii) they shall cooperate with the investigation and be available for interrogation; (iv) they shall not intimidate witnesses or interfere with the investigation; (v) they shall not commit any offence during the currency of the bail, failure of which may cancel the bail.
Final Disposition: Accused Nos.1 and 2 granted anticipatory bail; accused No.3 denied anticipatory bail.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Mahesh
Kaladhar
Sunil Babu

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam, PIN - 682031

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Adv V.A.JOHNSON (VARIKKAPPALLIL)

Counsels for Respondents

• Smt. T V Neema, Senior Public Prosecutor

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 CrPC filed by accused nos. 1 to 3 in Crime No. 800 of 2022, Kozhinjampara Police Station, Palakkad, before the Kerala High Court. The prosecution alleges that on 11 December 2022, during a marriage function, the accused assaulted the de facto complainant and his brother following a dispute linked to seating arrangements, with the first accused beating and kicking the complainant causing him to fall from a motorcycle and suffer burn injuries. The third accused is alleged to have beaten the complainant’s brother, resulting in bleeding. Medical records show that the brother sustained a comminuted fracture of the left temporal bone with subdural hemorrhage, pneumocephalus, and related CT findings. The defense contends innocence and attributes the incident to sudden provocation during the function, asserting that the third accused alone used a stone; the other two did not wield any weapon. The Public Prosecutor submits that the injuries are serious and arrest and custodial interrogation are necessary. After reviewing the case diary and medical evidence, the court notes that weapon use is alleged against only the third accused and that investigation for him requires arrest and weapon recovery, while the other two have no weapon allegations. The court ultimately grants anticipatory bail to accused nos.1 and 2 with conditions, and dismisses the anticipatory bail for accused no.3.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contend their innocence; a scuffle occurred during a marriage function, apparently arising from a sudden provocation. They point out that the first two accused did not use weapons, whereas the third accused allegedly used a stone to assault the brother of the de facto complainant. They argue that, given the lack of weapon use by the petitioners and the possibility of false implication, anticipatory bail should be granted as a measure to safeguard their liberty during investigation.

Contentions of Respondents

The Public Prosecutor opposes anticipatory bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the injuries, including a comminuted fracture of the left temporal bone with subdural hemorrhage and CT findings. It is argued that arrest and custodial interrogation are necessary to ensure a meaningful investigation and to locate and recover any weapons used.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN** **TUESDAY, THE 14[TH] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023 / 25TH MAGHA, 1944** **BAIL APPL. NO. 1039 OF 2023** **CRL.M.C.NO.160/2023 OF THE COURT ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-I, PALAKKAD CRIME NO.800 OF 2022 OF KOZHINJAMPARA POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD** ## **APPLICANTS/ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 3 :** **1 MAHESH AGED 37 YEARS S/O.CHATHUNNI, VETTAKKARAN CHALLA, PARISHIKKAL.P.O, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678556** **2 KALADHARAN AGED 48 YEARS S/O.CHATHUNNI, RAMANDI CHALLA, PARISHIKKAL,P.O, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678556** **3 SUNIL BABU AGED 37 YEARS S/O.SUBRAMANIAN, KARIMANNU, KOZHINJAMPARA, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678556** **BY ADV V.A.JOHNSON (VARIKKAPPALLIL)** ## **RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT :** **STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031** **BY SMT. T V NEEMA, SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR** **ADMISSION ON 14.02.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** B.A.No.1039 of 2023 ..2.. ## **A.BADHARUDEEN, J.** **--------------------------------------------------------** **B.A.No.1039 of 2023** **-------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 14[th] day of February, 2023** ## **O R D E R** This is an application for anticipatory bail filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, by the petitioners who are accused Nos.1 to 3 in Crime No.800 of 2022 of Kozhinjampara Police Station, Palakkad. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and also the learned Public Prosecutor. 3. I have perused the case diary materials produced by the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. The prosecution allegation is that, at about 5.00 p.m, on 11.12.2022, accused Nos.1 to 3 manhandled B.A.No.1039 of 2023 ..3.. the defacto complainant and his brother on account of animosity arose out of the occurrence whereby, the brother of the defacto complainant asked the third accused why he had placed bucket on the table. The specific allegation is that the first accused beat and kicked the defacto complainant and thereby, he fell on a motorcycle and sustained burn injuries, when he came into contact with the silencer. The further allegation is that the third accused beat on the head of one Raghu, the brother of the defacto complainant and the same caused bleeding and injury to the head. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent and a scuffle occurred during a marriage function arose out of sudden provocation led to the occurrence. According to him, the defacto complainant sustained burn injuries by fall from bike and the brother also sustained head injury B.A.No.1039 of 2023 **==> picture [20 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** by fall from bike. 6. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, even otherwise, the third accused alone alleged to have used a stone to assault the brother of the defacto complainant. Therefore, the other accused, who did not use any weapon, are liable to be released on anticipatory bail. 7. The learned Public Prosecutor strongly opposed grant of anticipatory bail, highlighting the fact that the allegations are serious. It is pointed out that Raghu sustained comminuted fracture left temporal bone, as could be born out from the wound certificate as well as the CT scan report pertaining to him. Therefore, arrest and custodial interrogation of the petitioners are necessary. 8. On perusal of the case diary, the allegation of the prosecution confining the use of weapon is against B.A.No.1039 of 2023 ..5.. the third accused/third petitioner alone. The third accused alleged to have beat on the head of the defacto complainant and the same caused comminuted fracture left temporal bone with small bony fragments and the impressions in the CT Scan report are as under: Subdural hemorrhage in left temporal region and along the falx cerebrum. Small intraparenchymal hemorrhagic contusion in left temporal lobe with pneumocephalus. Fracture of left temporal bone. 9. Going by the case diary with reference to the medical documents, use of stone by the third accused to beat on the head of the defacto complainant's brother and consequential fracture, as pointed out herein above could be gathered. In such a case, arrest, custodial interrogation and recovery of weapon at the instance of the third petitioner/third accused are absolutely necessary to effectuate meaningful investigation. B.A.No.1039 of 2023 ..6.. 10. Insfoar as the other petitioners are concerned, the prosecution has no case that they have used any weapon. Therefore, investigation against them can be materialised by directing themselves to surrender before the Investigating Officer and subject themselves for interrogation. Accordingly, the bail application at the instance of the third petitioner/third accused stands dismissed. Anticipatory bail at the instance of accused Nos.1 and 2 stands allowed on the following conditions: i. The petitioners 1 and 2/accused Nos.1 and 2 shall surrender before the Investigating Officer within ten days from today and on such surrender, the Investigating Officer can question them. In the event of their arrest, the Investigating Officer shall produce the petitioners 1 and 2 before the jurisdictional court on the date of arrest itself. ii. On such production, the jurisdictional court shall release the petitioners 1 and 2 on bail, B.A.No.1039 of 2023 ..7.. on executing bond for Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand only) by themselves and by two solvent sureties, each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court. iii. The petitioners 1 and 2 shall co-operate with investigation and shall be made available for interrogation and for the purpose of investigation, as and when the Investigating Officer directs so. iv. The petitioners 1 and 2, shall not, intimidate the witnesses or interfere with the investigation in any manner. - v. The petitioners 1 and 2 shall not commit any offence during currency of this bail and any such involvement is a reason to cancel the bail hereby granted. Sd/- ## **A.BADHARUDEEN, JUDGE** rkj B.A.No.1039 of 2023 ..8.. ## **APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 1039/2023** **PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE 1 CITIZEN COPY OF THE F.I.R.NO.800/2022 OF KOZHINJAMPARA POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD ALONG WITH FI STATEMENT ANNEXURE 2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CRL.M.C.NO.160/2023 OF THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-I, PALAKKAD DATED 23.01.2023**