Two bail petitions: Anoop V & Radhi Krishna v. State of Kerala; Shamil Raj v. State of Kerala (BAIL APPL. NOS. 1629 OF 2023 & 1614 OF 2023)

## _`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`_ ## _`PRESENT`_ ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN ``` ``` FRIDAY, THE 17[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 26TH PHALGUNA, 1944 ``` ## _`BAIL APPL. NO. 1629 OF 2023`_ ## _`PETITIONERS:`_ ``` 1ANOOP V AGED 37 YEARS S/O. VAMADEVAN, KCRA 4A8, RAM NIVAS, NTS LANE, SJ CHURCH ROAD, KARAKULAM PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN - 695564 2RADHI KRISHNA AGED 36 YEARS W/O. ANOOP V, KCRA 4A8, RAM NIVAS, NTS LANE, SJ CHURCH ROAD, KARAKULAM PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN - 695564 BY ADVS. K.S.SREEREKHA T.R.HARI KRISHNAN 1STATE OF KERALA STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, KOCHI, PIN - 682031 2HARIKRISHNAN ( SOUGHT TO BE IMPLEADED ) S/O S.RADHAKARISHNAN, GRAC 44, CHERUVALLI LANE, GANDHIPURAM, PANGAPPARA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ( SOUGHT TO BE IMPLEADED ) BY ADVS. Gokul SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY ARAVIND BABU A.S ``` ## _`RESPONDENTS:`_ ## _`OTHER PRESENT:`_ ``` spl GP RENJITH.S,GOKUL T SUDHEER ``` ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.03.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` B.A. No. 1629 & 1614 of 2023 ``` ``` ..2.. ``` ``` IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM ``` ## _`PRESENT`_ ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN ``` ``` FRIDAY, THE 17[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 26TH PHALGUNA, 1944 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 1614 OF 2023 ``` ## _`PETITIONER:`_ ``` SHAMIL RAJ AGED 32 YEARS PRA 12, SHARMILA VILASAM, PADMA VILASAM, PEROORKADA P O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695005 BY ADVS. K.S.SREEREKHA T.R.HARI KRISHNAN ``` ## _`RESPONDENTS:`_ ``` 1STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 2HARIKRISHNAN ( SOUGHT TO BE IMPLEADED ) S/O S.RADHAKARISHNAN, GRAC 44, CHERUVALLI LANE, GANDHIPURAM, PANGAPPARA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ( SOUGHT TO BE IMPLEADED ) BY ADVS. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Gokul SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY ARAVIND BABU A.S ``` ## _`OTHER PRESENT:`_ ``` spl GP RENGITH .S,GOKUL T SUDHEER ``` ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.03.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` B.A. No. 1629 & 1614 of 2023 ``` ``` ..3.. ``` ## **COMMON ORDER** **Dated this the 17[th] day of March, 2023** These petitions are filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking pre-arrest bail. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 are the petitioners in B.A. No. 1629 of 2023 of Petta Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, where the prosecution alleges the commission of offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 323, 324, 341, 506, 308, 427 read with 34 of the IPC. 2. The 3[rd] accused in the same crime seeks anticipatory bail in B.A.No. 1614 of 2023. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the prosecution and Adv. Gokul T Sudhakaran appeared for the _de facto_ complainant to oppose the bail application. 4 **.** The prosecution case is that at about 10.30 hours on ``` B.A. No. 1629 & 1614 of 2023 ``` **==> picture [31 x 7] intentionally omitted <==** 17.02.2023, the accused herein moved their car towards the left side of the road without any signal, and the same happened to hit on the motorcycle where the _de facto_ complainant was travelling. When the _de facto_ complainant questioned the careless overt act, accused Nos. 1 and 2 reached near the motorcycle of the de facto complainant and abused him. Thereafter, the accused wrongfully restrained the _de facto_ complainant in front of O BY TAMARA Hotel. Further allegation is that then the 2[nd] accused slapped on the right cheek of the de facto complainant and the 1[st] accused attempted to cause stab injury on the face of the de facto complainant by using the key of the car. Since the same was restrained, the same caused injury on his nose. In continuation of the same, it is alleged that, thereafter, when the de facto complainant reached Petta, the 3[rd] accused also beat the de facto complainant by using a helmet. This is a basis for the prosecution alleges commission of the above offences. ``` B.A. No. 1629 & 1614 of 2023 ``` **==> picture [31 x 7] intentionally omitted <==** 5. While pressing for anticipatory bail to the petitioners, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent and on no stretch of imagination, the prosecution is justified in incorporating the one and only nonbailable offence punishable under Section 308 of the IPC. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, this occurrence even according to the prosecution is one that arose out of a sudden provocation while the accused and the de facto complainant were travelling through the public road. Further, the petitioners are ready to abide by any conditions as a pre-requisite for grant of anticipatory bail. The learned counsel also pointed out that eventhough two persons were alleged to have sustained injuries, one of the injured, Rahul did not sustain any injury and the other man sustained only abrasion on the nose bridge. 6. The learned Special Government Pleader strongly ``` B.A. No. 1629 & 1614 of 2023 ``` **==> picture [31 x 7] intentionally omitted <==** opposed grant of pre-arrest bail on the submission that two Advocates practicing in the Thiruvananthapuram Bar Association were attacked since they questioned unholy behavior at the instance of the petitioners herein. It is also submitted that since Harikrishnan sustained injury on his nose, the prosecution is justified in incorporating offence punishable under Section 308 of the IPC. Therefore, arrest and custodial interrogation are necessary. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the de facto complainant vividly described the plight of two lawyers who were assaulted by accused Nos. 1 and 2 initially and by the 3[rd] accused subsequently. According to the learned counsel for the de facto complainant, using a key chain to beat on the face of the de facto complainant carries the knowledge contemplated under Section 308 of the IPC and in such a case arrest and custodial interrogation are necessary. It is submitted by the learned counsel ``` B.A. No. 1629 & 1614 of 2023 ``` **==> picture [31 x 7] intentionally omitted <==** appearing for the de facto complainant further that the petitioners are persons having no respect to law and they have attacked two lawyers when the lawyers questioned an illegal activity at the instance of the petitioners. The learned counsel would submit further that attack against Advocates should be viewed more seriously to protect the interest of the legal profession. 8. I have perused the case diary along with the FIS and two wound certificates. The prosecution allegation is that at about 10.30 hours on 17.02.2023, the accused herein moved their car towards the left side of the road, without any signal and the car happened to hit on the motorcycle where the _de facto_ complainant was travelling. When the _de facto_ complainant questioned the said careless overt act, accused Nos. 1 and 2 reached near the motorcycle of the _de facto_ complainant and abused him. Thereafter, the accused had wrongfully restrained the _de facto_ complainant in front of O BY TAMARA Hotel. ``` B.A. No. 1629 & 1614 of 2023 ``` **==> picture [31 x 7] intentionally omitted <==** Further allegation is that then the 2[nd] accused slapped on the right cheek of the _de facto_ complainant and the 1[st] accused attempted to cause stab injury on the face of the _de facto_ complainant by using the key of the car. Although, the same was restrained, the same caused injury on his nose. In continuation of the same, it is alleged that when the _de facto_ complainant reached Petta, the 3[rd] accused also beat the _de facto_ complainant by using a helmet. It is to be noted that when the de facto complainant, who is a practicing Advocate, questioned an illegal activity of the petitioners the overt acts alleged to be done by the petitioners. It is true that eventhough the prosecution alleges the commission of offence punishable under Section 308 of the IPC, in the wound certificate of Rahul, the observation is ‘no external injuries’. Coming to the wound certificate of Harikrishnan, the one and only injury noticed is abrasion on the nose bridge. 9. Having noticed the factual aspects in the context of the ``` B.A. No. 1629 & 1614 of 2023 ``` **==> picture [31 x 7] intentionally omitted <==** discussion, the investigation as regards the allegation can go on, and _prima facie_ the allegations may have force. However, the prosecution records do not suggest the necessity of arrest, detention, and custodial interrogation. However, the petitioners can be given deemed custody, for the purpose of interrogation and recovery of the key and helmet. Therefore, the petitioners shall surrender before the Investigating Officer for the purpose of interrogation as well as the recovery of the alleged key and the helmet used by accused Nos. 1 and 3. 10. Therefore, the bail application stands allowed, on the following conditions: i. Petitioners are directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer for a period of two days within ten days from today between 10.00 am to 12.00 noon. In the meanwhile, the Investigating Officer can interrogate the ``` B.A. No. 1629 & 1614 of 2023 ``` ``` ..10.. ``` petitioners and recover the weapons, if any, during the deemed custody of the petitioners after their surrender. ii. In the event of their arrest the Investigating Officer shall release the petitioners on bail, on executing bond for Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty thousand) each, by themselves and by two sureties, each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer. - iii. The petitioners 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, shall not, intimidate the witnesses or interfere with the investigation in any manner. - v. The petitioners shall not commit any offence ``` B.A. No. 1629 & 1614 of 2023 ``` ``` ..11.. ``` **==> picture [37 x 93] intentionally omitted <==** during currency of this bail and any such involvement is a reason to cancel the bail hereby granted. The Bail Applications are allowed as above. **Sd/-** **A. BADHARUDEEN JUDGE** RMV