Renjith and Ramesh v. State of Kerala

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: A. Badharudeen
Judgment Date: 2022-05-10
Court Decision / Holding: The court held that anticipatory bail cannot be granted to the first accused due to the necessity of arrest and custodial interrogation for ongoing investigation. The second accused, who allegedly joined the incident without using a weapon, was granted anticipatory bail on specific conditions: surrender before the IO by 17.05.2022 between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m.; production before the jurisdictional Magistrate on arrest with bonds of Rs.50,000 with two sureties; compliance with Covid-19 restrictions; ongoing cooperation; and a duty not to involve in any crimes during the bail period, with breach to cancel the bail.
Final Disposition: Partly allowed: Accused 2 granted anticipatory bail; Accused 1's anticipatory bail plea dismissed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Renjith S/o Pushpangadhan
Ramesh R., S/o Ramanan

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala
The Station House Officer, Eravipuram Police Station, Kollam

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• B. Mohanlal
• P. S. Preetha Shine
• N. S. Karthik
• J. Sekhar

Counsels for Respondents

• M. P. Prasanth

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a bail application (BA No. 3432 of 2022) filed before the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam by accused Nos. 1 and 2 in Crime No. 378 of 2022 of Eravipuram Police Station, Kollam. The matter came up before a learned single judge, Justice A. Badharudeen. The prosecution alleges that on 31 March 2022 the petitioners trespassed into a shop owned by the defacto complainant’s father, and that accused 1 assaulted the complainant with an iron, causing fractures to the left ulna and right clavicle, while accused 2 beat and kicked the complainant and assisted in the alleged robbery of a mobile phone and Rs 22,500. The offences cited are Sections 452, 294(b), 323, 324, 326 and 392 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The petitioners contend the incident arose out of a family dispute, that they themselves sustained injuries, and point to Facebook posts inflaming events; they are ready to comply with conditions for anticipatory bail. The State contends arrest and custodial interrogation are necessary to advance the investigation and recover the weapon. After considering the materials and arguments, the court dismissed the anticipatory bail plea for the first accused, but granted anticipatory bail to the second accused on several conditions, including surrender by 17 May 2022, bonds of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties, compliance with Covid restrictions, and ongoing cooperation with the investigation. The order is a partial relief for the petitioners and imposes strict safeguards to ensure ongoing compliance.

Provisions of Law Cited

IPC 452IPC 294(b)IPC 323IPC 324IPC 326IPC 392IPC 34

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners submitted that the incident largely stems from a family dispute and that they are ready to abide by any conditions for anticipatory bail. They contended that there is no mens rea to cause grievous harm and highlighted injuries to themselves in the same occurrence. They argued that police hesitated to register a crime and that unwarranted media attention on Facebook inflated tensions, warranting a cautious grant of bail with conditions to ensure cooperation with investigation.

Contentions of Respondents

The State opposed anticipatory bail, asserting a well-founded case based on the FIR registered the next day and the wound certificate documenting significant injuries. It urged arrest and custodial interrogation to advance the investigation and to recover the weapon allegedly used by the first accused, emphasizing the gravity of the offences under IPC Sections 452, 294(b), 323, 324, 326, and 392 read with Section 34.

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 10[TH] DAY OF MAY 2022 / 20TH VAISAKHA, 1944** **BAIL APPL. NO. 3432 OF 2022** **CRIME NO.378 OF 2022 OF ERAVIPURAM POLICE STATION IN** ## **KOLLAM DISTRICT** ## **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 AND 2 :** - **1 RENJITH, S/O.PUSHPANGADHAN AGED 42 YEARS DEVAKI MANDIRAM, SHAKTHIKULANGARA, SHAKTHIKULANGARA VILLAGE, KOLLAM - 691581** - **2 RAMESH.R., S/O.RAMANAN AGED 45 YEARS VILAPPURATHU VEEDU, AYATHIL P.O., KOLLAM, PIN - 691021** **BY ADVS. B.MOHANLAL P.S.PREETHA SHINE N.S KARTHIK J SEKHAR** ## **RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT :** - **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031** - **2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, ERAVIPURAM POLICE STATION, ERAVIPURAM P.O., KOLLAM – 691011** **BY SRI M.P. PRASANTH, P.P** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.05.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** B.A.No.3432 of 2022 ..2.. ## **A.BADHARUDEEN, J.** ## **------------------------------------------------------------** ## **B.A.No.3432 of 2022** **-----------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 10[th] day of May, 2022** ## **O R D E R** Accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.378 of 2022 of Eravipuram Police Station seek pre-arrest bail in this matter. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Public Prosecutor. 3. As per the case of the prosecution, it is alleged that on 31.03.2022 at about 9.30 p.m., accused Nos.1 and 2 criminally trespassed into the shop managed by the defacto complainant and owned by his father and thereafter, the first accused attempted to beat on the head of the defacto complainant and when it was restrained by using the left hand, the defacto complainant sustained fracture on his left hand and right clavicle. The allegation B.A.No.3432 of 2022 ..3.. against the second accused is that he also beat and kicked the defacto complainant. It is alleged by the prosecution further that the first accused snatched away mobile phone owned by the defacto complainant and also Rs.22,500/from the shop. This is the basis on which, prosecution alleges commission of offences under Sections 452, 294(b), 323, 324, 326 and 392 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners zealously argued to convince this Court that the entire allegation is the outcome of the family dispute and the petitioners also sustained some injuries in the same occurrence, though police hesitated register crime against the assailants. He submitted that some scandalous news published in the Facebook and the subsequent events led to the occurrence and in such a case, the petitioners are innocent and they are liable to be released on anticipatory bail. The learned counsel submitted that the petitioners are B.A.No.3432 of 2022 ..4.. ready to abide by any condition for granting anticipatory bail. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor strongly opposed bail and submitted that the prosecution case is well made out in a case where, the First Information Statement was registered on the next day of occurrence and wound certificate of the defacto complainant was recorded on the date of occurrence at 10.10 p.m. with the following injuries; “ABRASIONS: 2X1 cm on upper third of rights thigh, 2x1cm on dorsal aspect of left midforearm. Contusion right flank. LACERATED WOUNDS: 5x0.5x0.5cm on forehead, 7x1x0.5cm on left parietal region. X-RAYS: left forearm shows fracture distal end of left Ulna, Right shoulder and Chest-shows fracture right clavicle. CT brain & facial bones: No obvious extra or intracranial haemorrhage or fractures visualised.” 6. He submitted that arrest and custodial interrogation of the petitioners are necessary to go with the investigation of this case. 7. I have perused the materials available at par B.A.No.3432 of 2022 ..5.. with the arguments addressed by both sides. A bare perusal of the wound certificate would suggest that the defacto complainant sustained fracture distal end of left Ulna and fracture right clavicle among other injuries which were extracted herein above. The allegation of the prosecution is that the first accused used an iron to beat the defacto complainant. Therefore, arrest and custodial interrogation are necessary for the purpose of investigation and recovery of weapon alleged to be used by the first accused. In view of the matter, the first accused cannot be released on anticipatory bail. Therefore, the anticipatory bail plea at the instance of the first accused is dismissed. 8. Coming to the complicity of the second accused, there is no allegation for the prosecution that he had used any weapon to attack the defacto complainant and the only allegation is that he had beat and kicked the defacto complainant joining the company of the first accused. Therefore, the second accused/ second petitioner is B.A.No.3432 of 2022 ..6.. liable to be released on anticipatory bail. In the result, this petition at the instance of the second accused is allowed on the following conditions:- i. The second petitioner shall surrender before the Investigating Officer on or before 17.05.2022 between 9 a.m and 11 a.m. on such surrender, the Investigating Officer can interrogate the second petitioner and in the event of their arrest, the second petitioner shall be produced before the jurisdictional court on the day of arrest itself. On such production, the jurisdictional Magistrate shall release the second petitioner on bail, on executing bonds for Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty thousand) each with two solvent sureties, each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Magistrate. In case the second petitioner fails to surrender before the Investigating Officer, the Investigating Officer is at liberty to arrest the second petitioner forthwith. ii. The second petitioner shall co-operate with Covid-19 restrictions. iii. The second petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation and shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when directed, till the final report is filed. iv. The second petitioner, shall not, directly or B.A.No.3432 of 2022 ..7.. indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer. v. The second petitioner is specifically directed not to involve in any crimes during the currency of bail and any such involvement or violation of the above conditions, if reported or came to the notice of the court will be a reason to cancel the bail hereby granted. Sd/- ## **A.BADHARUDEEN, JUDGE** rkj B.A.No.3432 of 2022 ..8.. ## **APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 3432/2022** ## **PETITIONER ANNEXURES** - **Annexure-A1** **THE TRUE CITIZEN COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.378/2022 OF ERAVIPURAM POLICE STATION.** - **Annexure-A2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOS AND STATEMENTS PUBLISHED IN THE FACEBOOK BY THE DEFACTO COMPLAINANT.** - **Annexure-A3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT AND ITS RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE S.H.O., SAKTHIKULANGARA POLICE STATION.** - **Annexure-A4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN C.M.P. NO.1590/2021 DATED 18.11.2021 IN M.C.NO.115/2021 BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II, KOLLAM.** - **Annexure-A5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTO AND THE FILTHY WORDS POSTED IN THE FACEBOOK BY THE DEFACTO COMPLAINANT.** - **Annexure-A6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE O.P. TICKETS OF THE PETITIONERS OBTAINED FROM GOVERNMENT TALUK HOSPITAL, NEENDAKARA.** - **Annexure-A7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE O.P. TICKETS OF THE PETITIONERS OBTAINED FROM GOVERNMENT TALUK HOSPITAL, NEENDAKARA.** - **Annexure-A8 THE TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF INTENSIVE CARE AND TREATMENT OBTAINED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER FROM ATHIRA HOSPITAL, CHAVARA .** - **Annexure-A9 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 01/04/2022.** - **Annexure-A10 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE CITY** B.A.No.3432 of 2022 ..9.. **POLICE COMMISSIONER, KOLLAM CITY ON 01/04/2022.** **Annexure-A11** **THE CARBON COPY OF THE ORDER IN ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION IN CRL.M.C.NO:640/2022 DISMISSED BY THE LEARNED SESSIONS JUDGE, KOLLAM ON 23/04/2022.**