IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. NARAYANA PISHARADI
MONDAY, THE 02ND DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA,
Bail Appl..No.7763 OF 2019
CRIME NO.813/2019 OF Hill Palace Police Station , Ernakulam
AGED 40 YEARS
S/O. DIVAKARAN, PEREKKOOTTIL HOUSE, EROOR WEST
TRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM (DIST)
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:
R.NARAYANA PISHARADI, J
B.A.No.7763 of 2019
Dated this the 2nd day of December, 2019
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
of the Hill Palace police station registered under Section 498A
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
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
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.
R.NARAYANA PISHARADI, JUDGE