Kerala High Court
Sujith vs State Of Kerala on 1 October, 2021
BAIL APPL. NO. 5870 OF 2021 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V.
FRIDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 9TH ASWINA, 1943
BAIL APPL. NO. 5870 OF 2021
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMC 2351/2020 OF DISTRICT COURT &
SESSIONS COURT,TRIVANDRUM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
(CRIME NO.2703 OF 2020 OF VALIYAMALA POLICE STATION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM)
PETITIONER
SUJITH
AGED 29 YEARS
S/O. SUNDARAN, THADATHARIKATHU VEEDU, PERILA,
CHULLIMANOOR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-
695541.
BY ADV T.R.RAJAN
RESPONDENTS
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682031.
2 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
VALIYAMALA POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
DISTRICT, PIN-695547.
OTHER PRESENT:
SMT. SREEJA.V- SR.PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
01.10.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
BAIL APPL. NO. 5870 OF 2021 2
ORDER
The petitioner is the first accused in Crime No.2703/2021 of
Valiyamala Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 324, 326 and
506 (ii) read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. Apprehending
arrest in connection with this crime this application has been moved by
the petitioner under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. The prosecution allegation is that at about 6.30 p.m on
18.11.2020 this petitioner along with the other accused have formed
themselves into an unlawful assembly, armed with deadly weapons in
prosecution of the common object, wrongfully restrained the defacto
complainant and brutally attacked him causing fatal injuries including
fracture and thereby committed the aforesaid offences.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well the
learned Public Prosecutor.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has raised a plea of
false implication. He has submitted that he has not committed any
offence as alleged by the prosecution. It is also pointed out by him that
accused Nos.2 to 5 had already been granted pre-arrest bail by this
court and hence, this petitioner is also entitled to get an order of pre-
arrest bail.
5. On the other hand the learned Public Prosecutor has opposed
the application contending that this petitioner is having criminal
antecedents as he is involved in 3 other cases and his application by
the learned Sessions Judge was dismissed mainly pointing out that he
had indulged in certain cases.
6. It is true that the accused Nos.2 to 5 had already been
granted pre-arrest bail subject to certain conditions by this court. The
accused Nos.2 to 5 have no criminal antecedents. But the case of this
petitioner is different as he is involved in 3 other crimes. Of course out
of the 3 crimes, 1 crime is registered under the Motor Vehicles Act and
Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code. But the other 2 crimes are
different and Crime No.564/2019 is under Section 294(b), 323 , 324
read with Section 34 of the IPC. So no doubt this petitioner is having
criminal antecedents. Moreover the defacto complainant was attacked
by this petitioner along with the other accused with deadly weapons
such as sword and iron pipe.
Considering the nature of the accusations levelled against the
petitioner and also the fact that he is having criminal antecedents, I am
inclined to dispose of this petition directing him to surrender before the
investigating officer on 8.10.2021 between 10.30 a.m and 11.30 a.m.
Upon his surrender after interrogation and recovery if any, arrest has
to be recorded and he has to be produced before the jurisdictional
court on the very same day. If an application for bail is moved, the
learned jurisdictional court shall consider and dispose of the petition on
merits at the earliest preferably on the very same day.
The bail application is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
SHIRCY V.
JUDGE
smm
