Sebin Antony vs Anish
2023 Latest Caselaw 3900 Ker

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                            PRESENT
              THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
THURSDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 9TH CHAITHRA, 1945
                     CRL.A NO. 338 OF 2023
  AGAINST THE ORDER IN CRMP 447/2023 OF      SESSIONS COURT,
                           KOTTAYAM
APPELLANT/S:

            SEBIN ANTONY,
            AGED 31 YEARS
            THANNIVELIYIL HOUSE, KARIKATTOOR P.O.,
            MANIMALA, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686543
            BY ADV SURIN GEORGE IPE

RESPONDENT/S:

    1       ANISH
            PANTHALILPLAVU, KARIKATTOOR P.O., MANIMALA,
            KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686543
    2       STATE OF KERALA
            REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
            KERALA, PIN - 682031
            BY ADVS.
            LUKE J CHIRAYIL
            AMAL JOSE(K/2734/2022)
            ELSA MARY THOMAS(K/2667/2022)

OTHER PRESENT:

            RENJIT GEORGE- SR.PP


        THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
30.03.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 Crl.Appeal No.338 of 2023

                                   -2-



                              JUDGMENT

Dated this the 30th day of March, 2023

The appellant is the accused in Crime No.89

of 2023 of Manimala Police Station, registered

for the offence under Section 307 IPC and Section

3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled

Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act,

2015. The crime is registered on the allegation

that, on 22.01.2023, by about 5.30 p.m, the

appellant attempted to murder the first

respondent/injured by inflicting multiple stab

injuries on him with a knife. The appellant was

arrested on 27.01.2023 and is continuing in

custody from that day onwards. Even though the

appellant filed a petition seeking bail, the same

was rejected as per the impugned order.

2. Heard Adv.Surin George for the appellant

and Adv.Luke J Chirayil for the first respondent.

3. Learned Counsel for the appellant Crl.Appeal No.338 of 2023

submitted that the investigation of the crime is

complete in all respects. The alleged weapon of

offence has been seized and the crucial witnesses

questioned. As such, there is no justification in

refusing bail to the appellant.

4. Learned Counsel for the first respondent

opposed the prayer for bail, pointing out that

the appellant is a history-sheeter and has

committed similar crimes also. It is submitted

that the appellant's modus operandi is to inflict

incise stab wounds on victims. In the instant

case, the deep incised injury suffered by the

first respondent has resulted in long standing

physical issues. It is submitted that if the

appellant is enlarged on bail, he may commit

other crimes and also threaten and intimidate the

first respondent.

5. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the

prayer for grant of bail in view of the

appellant's criminal antecedents. Crl.Appeal No.338 of 2023

Having heard the learned Counsel, I find

substance in the apprehension expressed by the

first respondent and I also take note of the

appellant's antecedents. Even then,

incarceration of the appellant for more than 62

days for the alleged commission of an offence

under Section 307 of the IPC is not justified.

Hence, I am of the opinion that the bail can be

granted to the appellant on stringent conditions.

Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of as under;

(i) The appellant shall be released on

bail, on his executing a bond for Rs.50,000/-

with two solvent sureties for the like amount, to

the satisfaction of the court below.

(ii) The appellant shall not enter the

limits of the Manimala Police Station without the

permission of the Sessions Court.

(iii) On being released from custody, the

appellant shall report before the Station House

Officer of the Police Station within the limits Crl.Appeal No.338 of 2023

of which he will be residing during the bail

period.

(iv) The appellant shall not leave the

limits of Kottayam District, without prior

permission from the Sessions Court.

(v) The appellant shall not threaten or

intimidate the first respondent or other

witnesses, in any manner whatsoever.

(vi) If the appellant gets involved in

any other offence during subsistence of the bail,

the Public Prosecutor can move an application for

cancellation of bail.

Sd/-

V.G.ARUN JUDGE Scl/ Crl.Appeal No.338 of 2023

APPENDIX OF CRL.A 338/2023

RESPONDENT ANNEXURES Annexure R1(e) True copy of the judgment dated 07.09.2018 in C.C. No. 930 of 2017 on the files of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class -II, Kanjirappally Annexure R1(d) True copy of the FIR dated 27.03.2019 numbered as 363/2019 Annexure R1(c) True copy of the FIR dated 20.12.2019 numbered as 1397/2019 of Mundakkayam Police Station, Kottayam District Annexure R1(b) True copy of the photographs evidencing the injuries sustained by the appellant Annexure R1(a) True copy of the Discharge Card dated 31.03.2023 having I.P. No. 5345 issued by Medical College Hospital, Kottayam