KS Kasim v State of Tamil Nadu

This is a criminal appeal to set aside the applicant’s conviction and sentence by the
Additional District and Sessions Judge.

The Criminal Appeal is dismissed by confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the
learned Additional District Sessions Judge-cum-Fast Track Court. Police is directed to secure
the appellant forthwith to undergo the remaining period of sentence.

Evidence of Rasik clearly stated that Kasim attacked him with an iron rod. The doctor’s
evidence proved the same. Wound certification revealed that Rasik sustained injuries.The
evidences show that injury sustained is grievous in nature. The court found that the appellant
committed the offence under section 324 (Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or
means) of the IPC and there is no material to show that he committed other offences.
In absence of appeal from the prosecution and complainant against the acquittal or for
enhancement of sentence, the court cannot go beyond the scope of this appeal.
There is no merit in this appeal and the trial court has rightly convicted the appellant under
section 324 to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2000 in default to
undergo three months simple imprisonment. There is no sound reason to interfere with the
trial court’s judgment.

The appellant did not defend his case despite the appeal pending for more than 10 years and
the notification of the hearing being published in the cause list for 1 week. The court
independently perused the material placed before it.
As per the prosecution, 27 accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly with a
common object to murder Thajudin and cause injuries to witnesses Rasik, Sidik and Usuf.
The accused came with different weapons. The accused Ana assaulted Thajudin and caused
injuries on his head. The other accused were part of the unlawful assembly. KS Kasim
assaulted Rasik, while some of the other accused assaulted other witnesses.
The trial court framed the accused of multiple charges.
 Sandeep Kumar v State of Haryana
(High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh) CRM-M-45923-2019 on 03/08/2021

Introduction:
This is a petition for pre-arrest bail. The petitioner, along with other co-accused, is accused of
grievously hurting the complainant.
The court observed that considering the gravity and seriousness of allegations, and
requirement of custodial interrogation of the petitioner, he cannot be granted pre-arrest bail.

Background:
As per the prosecution, when Dilbag Singh (the complainant) was about to leave his home for
his job, Balraj, Ranbir, Anil along with 4-5 other unknown persons trespassed in the house of
the complainant and attacked him with gandasas. When his wife, Shakuntala, tried to
intervene, she was given beatings and became unconscious. The assailants then ran away
from the spot. Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the application for pre-arrest bail. Thus,
the petitioner approached the High Court for grant of similar relief.
The complainant did not specifically named the petitioner as one of the assailants but his
name cropped up during investigation.

Arguments Raised:
Counsel for the complainant referred to photographs showing that the complainant suffered
multiple injuries and was bleeding profusely. One of the injuries is grievous in nature out of
merciless assaults by the assailants. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required for
effective investigation.
Counsel for the petitioner argued that on the day of incident, the complainant caused injuries
to brother of the petitioner, Anil Kumar, and the complainant received some injuries in self
defence.

Observations of the Court:

The allegations against the petitioner are very grave that he along with co-accused, armed
with dangerous weapons, having a common object, formed an unlawful assembly and
committed rioting. They trespassed the house of complainant and caused injuries to him and
his wife. Such type of act and conduct cannot be taken lightly, rather, it is required to be dealt
with firmly, so that potential criminals are deterred from taking law into their hands and
indulge in unlawful activities.
Though, in the FIR, specific injuries have not been attributed to the assailants but merely for
said reason, the gravity of the criminal acts of assailants does not get diminished. When a
person in his house is attacked by several assailants carrying dangerous sharp edged weapons,
one goes in the state of shock and trauma and it is difficult to count the number of blows
being given and sequence thereof.
It does not matter that he has not given the precise details of the blows given to him by each
of the assailant, the sequence in which was it was so given and on which part of the body.
It is doubtful if the complainant side caused injuries to Anil Kumar. Rather, it is case of the
complainant that petitioner along with co-accused, including Anil, trespassed in his house.
Anil Kumar is said to have been granted pre-arrest bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of the Court,
and the petitioner is claiming parity along with him.
However, the case of petitioner is different. He filed for pre-arrest bail, which was granted by
the Additional Sessions Judge, but he withdrew the application. In the meantime, before he
filed his second application, gandasi had been recovered from him which pointed towards his
involvement in the incident. Thus the petition was rightly dismissed by the Additional
Sessions Judge. Anil was granted pre-arrest bail as he had joined the investigation and his
custodial interrogation was not required. While, the petitioner has not yet come up with
complete factual position within his knowledge and his custodial interrogation is required for
complete and effective investigation. The court found merit in the need of custodial
interrogation.
The Supreme Court held in CBI v Anil Sharma (1997) that custodial interrogation is
qualitatively more elicitation orientated than questioning a suspect who is on anticipatory
bail, in a case like this interrogation of suspected person is of tremendous advantage in
getting useful information.
Considering the gravity and seriousness of allegations, and requirement of custodial
interrogation of the petitioner, he cannot be granted pre-arrest bail. Pre-arrest bail is to be
granted in exceptional circumstances to save the innocent persons from harassment and
inconvenience and not to provide protective umbrella to the criminals enabling them to avoid
arrest and interrogation by the investigating agency. No case of pre-arrest bail is made out.

Directions:
The petition is found to be without any merit and is dismissed accordingly.
 Ram Autar v State of UP
(High Court of UP at Allahabad) Criminal Appeal No. 7163 of 2011 and 402 of 2012 on
16/05/2018

Synopsis:
There are two second bail applications on behalf of appellants Ram Autar, Jai Dev and
Chhotey Singh.

Arguments Raised:
The contention in the application is that the appellants have suffered incarceration for almost
10 years with no criminal history. There is no likelihood of the appeal being heard in the near
future.

Observations of the Court:

Looking into the seriousness of the allegations made, gravity of the offence and the severity
of punishment, no case for grant of any indulgence is made.

Directions:
Both the bail applications are rejected. However, looking at the period of incarceration, the
hearing of appeal is expedited. Let the appeal be listed for hearing after the paper book is
prepared within two months from today.
In case hearing of the appeal is not concluded within a period of one year from today, liberty
is given to the appellants to file a fresh bail application after a period of 14 months from
today.