Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeDismissed

Shanavas, Sharafudeen and Sajay Khan @ Vava v. State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:BA NO.5891 OF 2020 & 5924 OF 2020

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
Judgment Date
2020-09-28
Court Decision / Holding
Bail applications under Section 438 Cr.P.C dismissed. Anticipatory bail is not granted; the court follows the principles from Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement (AIR 2019 SC 4198).
Final Disposition
Dismissed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Shanavas, Sharafudeen and Sajay Khan @ Vava
  • Nijamuddin A, Rajeev and Aneesh

Respondents

  • State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam
  • Station House Officer of Thenmala Police Station

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Sri.Manu Ramachandran
  • • Sri.T.S.Sarath
  • • Sri.Sameer M Nair
  • • Sri.M.Kiranlal
  • • Sri.R.Rajesh (Varkala)

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Public Prosecutor
  • • Addl. Director General of Prosecution

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a bail petitions matter under Section 438 Cr.P.C. heard by a Single Judge of the Kerala High Court via video conference on 28 September 2020. The two bail applications, BA No. 5891 of 2020 and BA No. 5924 of 2020, arise from Crime No. 761/2020 registered at Thenmala Police Station, Kollam, alleging offences under Sections 294(b), 323, 324, 341, 354, 307 read with Section 34 IPC, and Section 27B of the Arms Act. The prosecution contends that the petitioners attacked the defacto complainant and another person with a sword, outraged modesty, and caused serious injuries; a son of the defacto complainant also sustained injuries. The petitioners challenge the arrest and seek anticipatory bail under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C., arguing that the allegations are false or exaggerated, that the second petitioner in BA 5891/2020 was actually attacked, and that there is a one-sided narrative reflected in the police report. They rely on Annexure-A2 to demonstrate injuries and contend police inaction and political targeting in other cases. The Public Prosecutor counters with the seriousness of the injuries, the accuseds’ criminal antecedents, and the likelihood of misuse of bail. The court, after hearing, finds the offenses involved serious, with significant injuries and antecedents, and refuses bail on the grounds that anticipatory bail is not a rule but an exception, citing well-settled Supreme Court principles (Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement). The applications are dismissed.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 438 of Cr.P.C.Section 27B of Arms ActSections 294(b), 323, 324, 341, 354, 307 read with Section 34 of IPCSection 307 IPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Anticipatory bail is not to be granted as a matter of rule and it has to be granted only when exceptional circumstances exist
  • well settled principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement (AIR 2019 SC 4198)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contended that the allegations are not correct. The second petitioner (BA 5891/2020) was allegedly attacked; Annexure-A2 shows the injuries. They submitted that the incident did not occur as alleged, the complaint was not accepted by the Police, and the case reflects a one-sided version with the Police acting due to other connected cases. They urged release on bail under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C., stressing lack of credible evidence and the possibility of misuse of liberty. They relied on the absence of independent witnesses and requested indulgence under extraordinary circumstances.

Contentions of Respondents

The Public Prosecutor argued that the injuries sustained are severe, supported by injury certificates, and that the petitioners have bad criminal antecedents and may misuse liberty. He highlighted the seriousness of the offenses, including attack with dangerous weapons and intent to cause grievous harm, and contended that anticipatory bail should be refused to safeguard victims and public interest.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of EnforcementAIR 2019 SC 4198PositiveCited to endorse the principle that anticipatory bail is exceptional and not granted as a matter of course; the court relies on this authority to deny bail.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

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 Shanavas, Sharafudeen and Sajay Khan @ Vava 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.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN** **MONDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020 / 6TH ASWINA, 1942** ## **Bail Appl..No.5891 OF 2020** **CRIME NO.761/2020 OF THENMALA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM** ## **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:** **1 SHANAVAS AGED 35 YEARS SON OF YUSUF, PARANKIMAMVILA VEEDU, ANAPETTAKONGAL P.O, EDAMON VILLAGE KOLLAM -691307 2 SHARAFUDEEN AGED 36 YEARS SON OF SHAJAHAN, KOLLANAZHIKATHU VEEDU, EDAMON PIN-691307 3 SAJAY KHAN @ VAVA AGED 24 YEARS SON OF ZAKIR HUSAIN, PARANKIMAMVILAYIL VEEDU, ANAPETTAKONGAL P.O, EDAMON PIN - 691307 BY ADVS. SRI.MANU RAMACHANDRAN SRI.T.S.SARATH SRI.SAMEER M NAIR SRI.M.KIRANLAL SRI.R.RAJESH (VARKALA)** ## **RESPONDENTS:** **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM - 682031 2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER OF THENMALA POLICE STATION POLICE STATION OF THENMALA PIN-691308** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** **SRI.AJITH MURALI, PP, SRI.RENJITH.T.R., PP** B.A.NO.5891 OF 2020 & 5924 OF 2020 2 **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28.09.2020, ALONG WITH Bail Appl.5924/2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** B.A.NO.5891 OF 2020 & 5924 OF 2020 3 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN** **MONDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020 / 6TH ASWINA, 1942** **Bail Appl..No.5924 OF 2020** **CRIME NO.761/2020 OF THENMALA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM** ## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED:** **1 NIJAMUDDIN A AGED 29 YEARS SON OF ALAVUDHEEN, KOLLANTAZHIKATHU HOUSE, EDAMON, EDAMON P.O KOLLAM - 691307 2 RAJEEV AGED 30 YEARS SON OF INDIRA, PARANKIMANVILA VEEDU, CHITTALAMKODU, EDAMON PIN-691307 3 ANEESH AGED 32 YEARS SON OF JAYAPALAN, KANAL PURAMBOKKU, EDAMON P.O, EDAMON PIN-691307 BY ADVS. SRI.MANU RAMACHANDRAN SRI.M.KIRANLAL SRI.T.S.SARATH SRI.R.RAJESH (VARKALA) SRI.SAMEER M NAIR** ## **RESPONDENTS:** |**1**|**STATE OF KERALA**| |---|---| ||**REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF**| ||**KERALA**| ||**682031**| |**2**|**STATION HOUSE OFFICER OF THENMALA POLICE STATION**| ||**POLICE STATION OF THENMALA**| ||**691308**| B.A.NO.5891 OF 2020 & 5924 OF 2020 4 **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR R1-2 BY ADDL.DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28.09.2020, ALONG WITH Bail Appl.No.5891/2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** B.A.NO.5891 OF 2020 & 5924 OF 2020 5 ## **O R D E R** These Bail Applications filed under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) was heard through Video Conference. 2. The petitioners in these two bail applications are the accused in Crime No.761/2020 of Thenmala Police Station, Kollam District. The above case is registered against the petitioners, alleging offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 323, 324, 341, 354, 307 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. The offence under Section 27B of the Arms Act is also alleged against the petitioners. 3. The prosecution case is that, the petitioners attacked the defacto complainant and another, using dangerous weapon like sword etc. It is also alleged that, the petitioners outraged the modesty of a lady. It is also alleged that, the petitioners committed the offence under Section 307 of I.P.C. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the B.A.NO.5891 OF 2020 & 5924 OF 2020 6 petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that,the allegation against the petitioners are not correct. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that, actually the 2[nd] petitioner in B.A.No.5891/2020 was attacked. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that, Annexure -A2 photographs will show the serious injuries sustained by the 2[nd] petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that, the incident is not happened as alleged by the prosecution. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that, the complaint submitted by the petitioners were not accepted by the Police. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that, it is a one sided version and the Police is proceeding against the petitioners, simply because they are involved in some other cases. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor seriously opposed the bail application. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that, the injured in this case sustained very serious injuries. The wound B.A.NO.5891 OF 2020 & 5924 OF 2020 7 certificate of the injured is made available by the learned Public Prosecutor. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that, all the petitioners are involved in other criminal offences and their criminal antecedents is very bad. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that, the petitioners may not be released on bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that, the son of the defacto complainant also sustained very serious injury. 7. After hearing both sides, I think, this is not a fit case, in which Orders under Section 438 of Cr.P.C can be issued. The allegation against the petitioners are very serious. The injured in this case sustained very serious injuries. There is criminal antecedents to the petitioners. 8. In such circumstances, the petitioners are not entitled Orders under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, this bail application is dismissed. 9. Moreover, the jurisdiction to grant bail under Sec.438 Cr.P.C has to be exercised on the well settled principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme B.A.NO.5891 OF 2020 & 5924 OF 2020 8 Court in Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement (AIR 2019 SC 4198). The Anticipatory Bail is not to be granted as a matter of rule and it has to be granted only when court is convinced that, exceptional circumstances exists to resort to the extraordinary jurisdiction. 10. It is true that, there is no hard and fast rule regarding grant or refusal to grant anticipatory bail. Each case has to be decided on the basis of the facts and circumstances of that case. In the light of the general principles laid down in the above judgment and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I am of the opinion that, this is not a fit case in which the petitioner can be released on bail under Sec.438 Cr.P.C. Hence this Bail Application is dismissed ## **Sd/-** ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN** ## **JUDGE** NB