Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 7TH CHAITHRA, 1947 BAIL APPL. NO. 3743 OF 2025 CRIME NO.49/2025 OF KAIPAMANGALAM POLICE STATION, THRISSUR PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NO.3:
ADBUL ROUF AGED 19 YEARS, S/O. SHAMSUDHEEN, PUZHANGARYILLATH HOUSE. KAIPAMANGALAM, CHALINGAD, THRISSUR, PIN - 680 681 BY ADVS. E.VIJIN KARTHIK POOJA P. DEVIPRIYA SATHYASEELAN RESPONDENT(S)/STATE: STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682 031 BY ADV.: SR PP - HRITHWIK C S THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of March, 2025
ORDER
This Bail application is filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
2. Petitioner is the 3rd accused in Crime No.49/2025 of Kaipamangalam Police Station, Thrissur. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Sections 189(2), 191(2), 191(3), 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 110 r/w 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.
3. The prosecution case in brief is that, due to previous enmity, accused Nos.1 to 6, in prosecution of their common object, formed
themselves into an unlawful assembly, on 18.01.2025 at about 09.45 PM, in the compound of Kaipamangalam Chalingad Pallinada St. Joseph’s Church, 5th and 4th accused wrongfully restrained the defacto complainant and his friend Faisal. The 2 nd accused voluntarily caused hurt to the defacto complainant by hitting on his head with a knuckle duster, 3rd accused beat on the back of the defacto complainant with a hammer and 6 th accused assaulted on the face of the defacto complainant with hand. 1st accused brandished with a knife on the neck of the defacto complainant. If he could not prevent the attack of the 1 st accused, his death would have been occurred. Hence, it is alleged that the accused committed the offence.
4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application.
5. After hearing the counsel for the petitioner in detail, I am of the considered opinion that, it is not a fit case in which the bail can be granted under
Section 482 of BNSS. At this stage the counsel for the petitioner submitted that, the petitioner is ready to surrender before the Investigating Officer. The counsel also submitted that, there may be a direction to produce the petitioner after interrogation before the jurisdictional court and there may be a direction to the jurisdictional court to consider the bail
application on the date of production of the petitioner. I think, that prayer can be allowed. Considering the submission of the counsel for the petitioner, this bail application is disposed of with the following conditions: 1) The petitioner will surrender before the Investigating Officer within two weeks from
today. 2) If the petitioner surrender before the Investigating Officer as directed above, the Investigating Officer is free to interrogate the petitioner. If arrest is recorded, the petitioner shall be produced before the jurisdictional court on the date of surrender itself. 3) The petitioner is free to file bail application before the jurisdictional court at the time of producing him. If such a bail application is filed with advance copy to the prosecutor concerned, the jurisdictional court will consider that bail application in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders in it preferably on the date of filing of the same itself. 4) The Investigating Officer is free to file custody application, if necessary, at the time
of producing the petitioner and if such an application is filed, the jurisdictional court is free to pass appropriate orders in it also. Sd/- P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN nvj JUDGE