Kerala High Court
Nikhil vs State Of Kerala on 8 June, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 18TH JYAISHTA, 1944
BAIL APPL. NO. 9225 OF 2021
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMC 1678/2021 OF DISTRICT COURT &
SESSIONS COURT,THRISSUR
CRIME NO.117/2019 OF KATTOOR POLICE STATION, TRISSUR DISTRICT
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.5:
NIKHIL
AGED 30 YEARS, S/O. MOHANAN, PUTHENVEETTIL HOUSE,
EDAKULAM, POOMANGALAM VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK,
TRISSUR DISTRICT.
BY ADV T.N.MANOJ
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA.
OTHER PRESENT:
SMT.K.B. SONY -GP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
08.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A.No.9225/2021 2
ORDER
The Petitioner is approaches this Court seeking
anticiapatory bail in Crime No.117/2019 of Kattoor Police
Station, Trissur District which is registered alleging commission
of offences under Sections 143, 148, 149, 321, 324, 323, 326,
120(B), 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Following investigation a
final report has already been filed in the matter and the matter is
now pending as S.C.No.163/2022 before Additional District
Sessions Court, Irinjalakkuda.
2. The allegation against the petitioner is that the
petitioner along with the other accused had attacked the de facto
complainant and one Bibin and as a result of which the de facto
complainant suffered some injuries and the the aforesaid Bibin
succumbed to his death.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in
the First Information Statement given by the de facto
complainant there is no allegation whatsoever against the
petitioner. It is submitted that thereafter a supplementary
statement has been recorded from the de facto complainant
which would suggest that the petitioner was also part of the gang
which attacked the de facto complainant and the aforesaid Bibin
resulting injuries to the de facto complainant and the death of
Bibin. It is submitted that the informant had no case that the
petitioner had attacked Bibin or the de facto complainant and on
the basis of the statement recorded from the CW2 that the
petitioner has been arrayed as an accused.
4. The learned Public Prosecutor however submits that
even in the initial statement recorded from CW1( the de facto
complainant) there is an allegation against the petitioner.
Considering the fact that a final report has already been filed in
the matter, I am of the opinion that the Court where the final
report has been filed will be in a better position to appreciate the
contentions taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
Therefore this bail application will stand disposed of directing
that Additional District Sessions Court, Irinjalakkuda, where the
matter is now pending as S.C.No.163/2022.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner may be permitted to surrender before the investigating
officer in Crime No.117/2019 and there may be a direction that
the petitioner shall be produced before the jurisdictional Court
after interrogation on the date of surrender itself. It is also
prayed that there may be a direction to the jurisdictional Court
consider and pass orders on the bail application that may be filed
by petitioner with prior notice to the Assistant Public Prosecutor
on the date of which is filed.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case
and considering the overall circumstances, I am of the opinion
that if the petitioner surrender before the investigating officer
within 10 days from today, the petitioner shall be produced
before the Jurisdictional Court after such interrogation that may
be necessary and any bail application that may be filed by the
petitioner before the Jurisdictional Court will be considered and
disposed of on the same day with notice to the Assistant Public
Prosecutor along with any application that may be filed by the
prosecution for further investigation.
Sd/-
GOPINATH P.
JUDGE
ats.
