SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Sudheeshkumar P.D vs The State Of Kerala on 2 December, 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. NARAYANA PISHARADI

MONDAY, THE 02ND DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA,
1941

Bail Appl..No.7763 OF 2019

CRIME NO.813/2019 OF Hill Palace Police Station , Ernakulam

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

SUDHEESHKUMAR P.D
AGED 40 YEARS
S/O. DIVAKARAN, PEREKKOOTTIL HOUSE, EROOR WEST
(PO)
TRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM (DIST)

BY ADVS.
SMT.K.DEEPA (PAYYANUR)
SMT.R.REKHA

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:

1 THE STATE OF KERALA
REP BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM 31

2 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
HILL PALACE POLICE STATION,
TRIPUNITHURA PIN 683102

SRI C K PRASAD-PP

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
25.11.2019, THE COURT ON 02.12.2019 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A.No.7763/2019
2

R.NARAYANA PISHARADI, J
************************
B.A.No.7763 of 2019
———————————————–
Dated this the 2nd day of December, 2019

ORDER

This is an application for bail filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

2. The petitioner is the sole accused in the case

registered as Crime No.813/2019 of the Hill Palace Police Station

under Sections 323, 324, 325 and 308 I.P.C.

3. The prosecution case is as follows: The de facto

complainant is the brother of the father of the accused. The de

facto complainant had admonished the accused with regard to his

use of ganja and his association with anti-social elements. The

accused had enmity towards the de facto complainant for that

reason. On 20.04.2019, at 21.00 hours, the accused reached the

house of the de facto complainant and attacked him with an iron

rod. He beat the de facto complainant on the forehead with the

iron rod. When the wife of the de facto complainant tried to
B.A.No.7763/2019
3

intervene, the accused hit on her face with his hand causing

injury to her tooth and he also pushed her down and kicked her

on the back.

4. After completing the investigation of the case,

chargesheet has been filed against the petitioner for the offences

mentioned above.

5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the

learned Public Prosecutor.

6. The petitioner was arrested on 29.07.2019 and since

then he has been in custody.

7. The petitioner had earlier filed an application for bail

as B.A.No.6020/2019. The aforesaid application was dismissed

by another learned Judge of this Court as per the order dated

30.08.2019. This is the second bail application filed by the

petitioner before this Court.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the

petitioner was brutally attacked by the de facto complainant and

his son and a counter case has been registered against them as

Crime No.814/2019 of the Hill Palace police station in that
B.A.No.7763/2019
4

regard.

9. The contention of the learned counsel for the

petitioner that, the case registered as Crime No.814/2019 of Hill

Palace police station is a counter case to the present case, cannot

be accepted. The incident in the present case (Crime

No.813/2019) had occurred at 21.00 hours on 20.04.2019. The

incident in the case registered as Crime No.814/2019 had

occurred at 21.20 hours on 20.04.2019 at a different place. It

appears that the attack allegedly made on the accused by the de

facto complainant and his son was an act of retaliation to the

attack made by the accused on them. In these circumstances,

the two cases cannot be strictly treated as ‘case and counter’.

10. The offences alleged against the petitioner are

punishable under Sections 323, Section324, Section325 and Section308 I.P.C. The

offence punishable under Section 308 I.P.C is alleged against him

for the reason that he had made attempt to inflict a blow on the

head of the de facto complainant with an iron rod but the de

facto complainant evaded the blow and if the blow had hit on his

head, it would have caused injury which was likely to result in
B.A.No.7763/2019
5

death.

11. The wound certificate issued in respect of the de facto

complainant shows only the following injuries on the forehead: (i)

Lacerated wound of 3 x 1 cm on the right side of the forehead.

ii) Lacerated wound of 1 x 0.5 cm on the left side of the

forehead.

12. Considering the nature of the injuries alleged to have

been caused by the petitioner to the de facto complainant and

also considering the fact that he has been in jail for the last more

than four months and further considering the fact that final

report has already been filed in the case, I am inclined to grant

bail to the petitioner on conditions.

13. However, regarding the conditions to be imposed on

granting bail to the petitioner, this Court has to take into

consideration many matters.

14. Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the

petitioner is a habitual offender and he is involved in many

criminal cases. The case diary as well as the report of the

investigating officer reveals that the petitioner is an accused in
B.A.No.7763/2019
6

the following pending cases. (i) Crime No.968/2014 of the Hill

Palace police station registered under Section 118A of the Kerala

Police Act. (ii) Crime No.2038/2016 of the Hill Palace police

station registered under Section 20(b)(ii)(A) of the Narcotic

Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act. (iii) Crime No.720/2017

of the Hill Palace police station registered under Sections 341 and

506 I.P.C. (iv) Crime No.1989/2017 of the Hill Palace police

station registered under Sections 447, 341 and 323 I.P.C. (v)

Crime No.145/2018 of the Hill Palace police station registered

under Sections 341, 323 and 324 read with 34 I.P.C.

15. The case diary as well as the report of the

investigating officer shows that the petitioner was an accused in

the following cases and he was acquitted in the aforesaid cases:

(i) Crime No.14/1998 of the Hill Palace police station registered

under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 326 and 302 read with 149

I.P.C. (ii) Crime No.334/2001 of the Hill Palace police station

registered under Section 379 read with 34 I.P.C. (iii) Crime No.

276/2003 of the Hill Palace police station registered under

Sections 323 and 326 read with 34 I.P.C. (iv) Crime No.373/2015
B.A.No.7763/2019
7

of the Hill Palace police station registered under Section 498A

I.P.C.

16. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that

though the petitioner was implicated in so many cases, he has

been acquitted in all those cases which have been disposed of so

far. However, considering the criminal antecedents of the

petitioner, I am of the view that, a condition has to be imposed

that he shall not involve in any other criminal case while he is on

bail in this case.

17. The case diary reveals that the petitioner was enlarged

on bail in some of the cases but subsequently, he made default in

appearance before the court and non-bailable warrant was issued

against him. Considering this aspect, it is also necessary to

ensure that sufficient solvent sureties are produced by him to

take him on bail.

18. The case diary also reveals that the wife of the de

facto complainant had made complaint to the police that the

petitioner had threatened her after the incident but before he

was arrested by the police. This is a serious matter to be taken
B.A.No.7763/2019
8

into consideration. This Court has to ensure that the petitioner

shall not threaten the witnesses and it would be necessary to

restrict his movements for that purpose.

19. In the result, the petition is allowed. The petitioner

shall be released on bail on the following conditions:

i) The petitioner shall execute a bond for Rs.50,000/-

(Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties for the like

amount to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court concerned.

ii) The sureties of the petitioner shall produce original

documents of the properties owned by them, along with attested

copies of those documents, to prove their solvency. The original

documents shall be returned to them after verification by the

court. The jurisdictional court shall ensure the identity and

solvency of the sureties.

iii) The petitioner shall not, in any manner, intimidate or

influence the de facto complainant or the members of his family

or other prosecution witnesses in the case.

iv) The petitioner shall not enter into the limits of Hill

Palace police station till the disposal of the present case against
B.A.No.7763/2019
9

him except for the purpose of appearing in any court or for

appearing before the investigating officer in any case in which he

is an accused.

v) The petitioner shall surrender his passport in the

jurisdictional court concerned within three days of his release on

bail. If he has no passport, he shall file an affidavit to that effect

in that court within that period.

vi) The petitioner shall not leave the State of Kerala

without the prior permission of the jurisdictional court concerned.

vii) The petitioner shall not involve in any other criminal

case while he is on bail in this case.

viii) If the petitioner violates any of the aforesaid

conditions of bail, the jurisdictional court is at liberty to cancel

the bail granted to him, without any further orders of this Court,

but in accordance with law.

(sd/-)

R.NARAYANA PISHARADI, JUDGE
jsr/29/11/2019

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation