Kerala High Court
Shanavas.C.S vs State Of Kerala on 14 June, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON
MONDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JUNE 2021 / 24TH JYAISHTA, 1943
BAIL APPL. NO. 4358 OF 2021
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMC 463/2021 OF DISTRICT COURT &
SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM, ERNAKULAM
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2:
SHANAVAS.C.S
AGED 40 YEARS
S/O.SULAIMAN, MANAKKAKKUDY HOUSE, MUDICKAL P.O.,
PERUMBAVOOR.
BY ADV C.P.TENNY
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KALAMASSERY
POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
ADV.SMT.V.SREEJA - PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.06.2021,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A.NO. 4358/2021
2
ORDER
Dated this the 14th day of June, 2021
APPLICATION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL
The applicant is the 2nd accused in Crime
No.61/2021 of Kalamassery Police Station, Ernakulam,
for having allegedly committed offences punishable
under Sections 341, 323 and 308 of the IPC. The
prosecution case, in brief, is this:
2. On 05.02.21 at about 08.00 pm, in front of Sea
Gate Bar, at Pathadippalam, the applicant in furtherance
of common intention with two others allegedly attacked
the defacto complainant on both sides of his neck and
on the back of the neck with a surgical blade and a
knife, and thus they attempted to commit culpable
homicide knowing fully that the attack with dangerous
weapons like a knife or a surgical blade is likely to prove
fatal. The applicant states that he is innocent and the
B.A.NO. 4358/2021
allegations are not true and that it was the 1 st accused
who had attacked the defacto complainant with a
surgical blade and caused injuries and that he has not
done anything and moreover he was not present
because he was recuperating from a surgery that he had
undergone at General Hospital, Ernakulam, which is
evident from Annexure A1 discharge report and
therefore, it could hardly be believed that the applicant
would have gone to attack the defacto complainant while
he was recuperating from surgery.
3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
applicant and the learned Public Prosecutor. The
learned Public Prosecutor submits that the applicant is a
notorious criminal having 5 other crimes registered
against him and that there is CCTV footage collected by
the Investigating Officer indicating the presence of the
applicant near the Sea Gate Bar on the date of
occurrence. Therefore, the averment that the applicant
B.A.NO. 4358/2021
could not have gone to the scene of occurrence while he
was recuperating from surgery can not be believed. A1
and A3 have already been arrested. But it is stated by
the learned Public Prosecutor under instructions that the
recovery of the weapon is yet to be made. Considering
the antecedents of the applicant, the bail application
may be dismissed.
4. After having heard the submission on both sides,
I find that the applicant is a person having criminal
antecedents and in case he is granted anticipatory bail,
he is likely to tamper with the evidence and moreover
recovery is not over. Therefore an opportunity has to be
given to the Investigating Officer to interrogate the
applicant. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to get
the exceptional remedy of anticipatory bail.
The bail application is therefore disposed of with a
direction to the applicant to surrender before the
Investigating Officer within two weeks. In the event of
B.A.NO. 4358/2021
his arrest, after interrogation and recovery, he shall be
produced before the jurisdictional court, where he is at
liberty to apply for a regular bail which shall be
considered and preferably disposed of on the same day.
Sd/-
ASHOK MENON
JUDGE
DM
