Friday, 15, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Vinod vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 23271 Ker

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 23271 Ker
Judgement Date : 25 November, 2021

Kerala High Court
Vinod vs State Of Kerala on 25 November, 2021
                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                    PRESENT
                   THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
                                       &
                   THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN
         Thursday, the 25th day of November 2021 / 4th Agrahayana, 1943

                 CRL.M.APPL.NO.11/2021 IN CRL.A NO. 869 OF 2020

            SC NO.239/2017 OF THE PRINCIPAL SESSIONS COURT- KOLLAM.

PETITIONER/APPELLANT NO.9/ACCUSED NO.9

        SHIJU @ ELUMALA SHIJU, AGED 36 YEARS S/O RAJENDRAN, GOPALA SADANAM,
        NEAR ELUMALA TEMPLE, NJARAKKALCHERI, THRIKKARUVA VILLAGE.

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

        STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
        KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.


     Petition praying that in the circumstances stated therein the High
Court be pleased to suspend the execution of sentence passed against the
petitioner in S.C.No.239 of 2017 of the Court of Principal Sessions Judge,
Kollam and to release him on bail till disposal of the appeal, or at least
for a period of two months.




     This petition coming on for orders upon perusing the petition and
upon hearing the arguments of B.RAMAN PILLAI (SR.), R.ANIL, M.SUNILKUMAR,
SUJESH MENON V.B., T.ANIL KUMAR, THOMAS ABRAHAM (NILACKAPPILLIL),
S.LAKSHMI SANKAR, MAHESH BHANU S Advocates for the petitioners and PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR for the respondent,the court passed the following:




p.t.o
 ANNEXURE A : The true copy of the certificate dated 16/11/2021 issued from
                     Bishop Benziger Hospital,Kollam
           K.VINOD CHANDRAN & C.JAYACHANDRAN, JJ.
               ----------------------------------------------
                       Crl.M.A.No.11 of 2021
                                     &
                       Crl.M.A.No.12 of 2021
                                     in
                        Crl.A.No.869 of 2020
                ---------------------------------------------
            Dated this the 25th day of November, 2021


                               ORDER

Jayachandran, J.

The Crl.M.A. first referred above is preferred

by the 9th accused and the one second referred above is

preferred by the 7th accused in S.C.No.239/2017 of the

Principal Sessions Court, Kollam. Both applications are

preferred under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, seeking suspension of the execution of the

sentence and release of the respective petitioners on

interim bail, for the reasons adverted to in the

applications and which are discussed herein.

2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the

applicants (accused Nos. 9 and 7) and learned Public

Prosecutor. Perused the records.

3. Learned counsel for the 9th accused (petitioner

in Crl.M.A.No.11/2021) submitted that the petitioner's

mother is advised to undergo knee Surgery at the earliest Crl.M.A.No.11 of 2021 & Crl.M.A.No.12 of 2021 in Crl.A.No.869 of 2020

as per Annexure-A certificate, issued from the Bishop

Benziger Hospital, Kollam, and that the presence of the

petitioner, being the only son, is unavoidable. On

merits, learned counsel pointed out that the allegation

against the petitioner/A9 is that he, along with accused

Nos. 7 and 8, have obstructed third persons from

approaching the scene of occurrence, so as to enable

smooth perpetration of the crime by accused Nos. 1 to 6.

It is also pointed out that the petitioner/A9 not armed

with any weapon.

4. Learned counsel for the 7th accused (petitioner

in Crl.M.A.No.12/2021) submitted that the petitioner's

baby aged 1 ½ years is suffering from Bilateral

Hydronephrosis, for which, the baby had undergone a

surgery on the left kidney. However, her right kidney is

also affected badly and the baby requires a surgery as

evinced by Annexure-A medical certificate.

5. Per contra, both these applications were

seriously opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor. Crl.M.A.No.11 of 2021 & Crl.M.A.No.12 of 2021 in Crl.A.No.869 of 2020

6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing on

both sides, we are not inclined to allow the Criminal

Miscellaneous Applications referred above. We notice, on

a perusal of the impugned judgment, that the present

crime is the result of gang wars between two groups of

goons. There were attacks and counter attacks.

7. Going by the prosecution case, the deceased in

the instant crime, one Rajesh and his friends stabbed

accused Nos. 1 and 2 herein, in retaliation of which,

accused Nos. 1 and 2 and their associates attempted to do

away with the deceased Rajesh. He, however, escaped

miraculously, though with serious injuries. In

reciprocation, the said Rajesh attempted to kill one Arun

M.S., a close ally, of accused Nos. 1 and 2 herein. It is

in culmination of the above referred attacks and counter

attacks that the instant crime was committed, wherein the

said Rajesh was hacked to death.

8. Upon consideration of the present applications

in the backdrop of the above referred circumstances, we Crl.M.A.No.11 of 2021 & Crl.M.A.No.12 of 2021 in Crl.A.No.869 of 2020

are not inclined to allow these applications. A perusal

of the impugned judgment (See Page No.141) would indicate

that the 9th accused was in judicial custody only from

10.11.2012 to 07.01.2013 and thereafter from 10.02.2020

up to 22.02.2020. Similarly, A7 was in judicial custody

only from 18.02.2012 to 19.05.2012 and thereafter from

10.02.2020 up to 22.02.2020. The above Crl.Appeal is of

the year 2020. It could thus be seen that the both the

petitioners have not served the sentence of imprisonment

even for a reasonable period.

9. That apart, we are of the view that knee

Surgery suggested for the mother of A9 is not a life

threatening situation and the petitioner's case is only

to the effect that there exists no male member in the

family to take care of the situation, which would

obviously mean that there are female members, possibly

the sisters of the petitioner or other relatives of the

petitioner's mother. In the case of A7, an application

for interim bail vide Crl.M.A.No.9/2021, preferred on the Crl.M.A.No.11 of 2021 & Crl.M.A.No.12 of 2021 in Crl.A.No.869 of 2020

self same ground was allowed vide order dated 25.10.2021,

suspending the sentence for a period of one month.

Therefore, successive applications for interim bail

within a short span on the same ground can hardly be

entertained.

For the reasons stated above, the Criminal

Miscellaneous Applications referred above are dismissed.

Sd/-

K.VINOD CHANDRAN JUDGE

Sd/-

C.JAYACHANDRAN JUDGE

NR/25/11/2021

25-11-2021 /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter