Kerala High Court
Mohammed Ashir A vs State Of Kerala on 30 July, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARIPAL
FRIDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF JULY 2021 / 8TH SRAVANA, 1943
BAIL APPL. NO. 5269 OF 2021
IN CRIME NO. 622 OF 2021 OF NEDUMANGAD POLICE STATION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMC 949/2021 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
COURT & SESSIONS COURT - VI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PETITIONER/3RD ACCUSED:
MOHAMMED ASHIR A.
AGED 22 YEARS
S/O.ABU B, KAILAYATHU VEEDU, AZHEEKODE, AZHEEKODE P.O.,
NEDUMANGAD TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV LATHEESH SEBASTIAN
RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM - 682 031.
2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER
NEDUMANGAD POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 685
553.
SR.PP - SRI. SANTHOSH PETER
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
30.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
BAIL APPL. NO. 5269 OF 2021
2
ORDER
The petitioner, who is arrayed as the 3th accused in
Crime No. 622/2021 of Nedumangad police station in
Thiruvananthapuram district, has moved this Court apprehending
arrest. The crime was registered alleging offence punishable
under Sections 294(b), 323, 324, 326, 307 and 450 r/w 34 of the
I.P.C.
2. The alleged incident had happened on 09.03.2021 at
about 2.00 pm inside the house of the defacto complainant. It is
alleged that the accused with common intention had trespassed
into the house of the defacto complainant and, assaulted and
injured him; he was seriously hurt in the occurrence.
3. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also
the learned Public Prosecutor. The point of argument of the
learned counsel for the petitioner is based on Annexure A1
remand report. Even though the petitioner has been roped in
with the aid of Section 34 of the I.P.C, he had neither entered the
BAIL APPL. NO. 5269 OF 2021
said house of the defacto complainant nor participated in the
alleged act of attack; it is also submitted that, he had only
enabled accused Nos.1 and 2 to escape from the place in a
scooter which is evident from the second page of Annexure A1
remand application.
4. After hearing counsel on both sides and also
adverting the prosecution records, it appears that the contentions
of the learned counsel for the petitioner are correct. The
weapons of offence, chopper and iron rods were allegedly used
by accused Nos.1 and 2 respectively. It is not evident from the
F.I.R that the petitioner had actually entered the house of the
defacto complainant, which is the actual place of occurrence. In
other words, he had only facilitated accused Nos.1 and 2 to
commit the crime and then escape in a scooter. In the
circumstances and having regard to the fact that the accused
Nos.1 and 2 have already been arrested, custodial interrogation
of the petitioner will not serve any purpose. I am convinced that
this is a fit case for granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
In the circumstances, the petitioner shall be at liberty to
surrender before the Investigating Officer within ten days from
BAIL APPL. NO. 5269 OF 2021
today and will make himself available for interrogation; in the
event of arrest, he shall be released on bail on executing bond for
Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only)with two solvent sureties
each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer;
he shall co-operate with the investigation, shall not try to contact or
influence the witnesses or tamper with the evidence and shall not
involve in any crime during the period on bail.
Bail Application is allowed as above.
Sd/-
K.HARIPAL
JUDGE
rps/
