Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS THURSDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 12TH MAGHA, 1945 BAIL APPL. NO. 679 OF 2024 CRIME NO.9/2024 OF KODUMON POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 AND 2:
BINU AGED 34 YEARS S/O. BABU, PARAPETTYKUTTIYIL HOUSE, PARAPPETTY, THATTAYIL P.O., THEKKEKKARA VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 691525 ANANDU AGED 28 YEARS S/O. SIVARAJAN, MALAYUDE KIZHAKKETHIL HOUSE, PONGALDI, MAMMOODU, PARANTHAL, PANDALAM, THEKKEKKARA VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 691525 BY ADVS. LEO LUKOSE ENOCH DAVID SIMON JOEL S.SREEDEV RONY JOSE KAROL MATHEWS SEBASTIAN ALENCHERRY DERICK MATHAI SAJI KARAN SCARIA ABRAHAM
RESPONDENT/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT: STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM (THROUGH THE S.H.O., KODUMON POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA)., PIN - 682031 BY SR PP SRI C S HRITHWIK -:2:- THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: -:3:- Dated this the 1st day of February, 2024
ORDER
The application is filed under Section 439 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the accused 1 and 2 in Crime No.9/2024 of Kodumon Police Station, Pathanamthitta, registered against them for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 341, 324 and 326 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The petitioners were arrested on 05.01.2024
2. The essence of the prosecution case is that:
around 14.00 hours on 05.01.2023, out of the previous animosity of the accused with the defacto complainant, the first accused uttered obscene words at the defacto complainant, wrongfully restrained him, and hit him with a stone on his right eyebrow resulting in a fracture on -:4:- his bone. The second accused hit the de facto complainant with a stone on his head resulting in a fracture. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences.
3. Heard; Sri. Leo Lukose, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri. C. S. Hrithwik, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted
that the petitioners are totally innocent of the accusation levelled against them. The petitioners have no criminal antecedents. The Investigating Officer has deliberately incorporated Section 326 to deny bail to the petitioners. The petitioners have been in judicial custody for the last 27 days. The investigation in the case is complete, and the recovery has been effected. The petitioners’ further detention is unnecessary. Hence, the bail application may be allowed.
-:5:-
5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the
application. Nonetheless, he conceded to the fact that the investigation in the case is complete and the recovery has been effected. The wound certificate is, at present, not available.
6. After bestowing my anxious consideration to
the materials placed on record and taking note of the fact that the petitioners have been in judicial custody since 05.01.2024, that the investigation in the case is practically complete, that the recovery has been effected, that the wound certificate of the injured is not made available, and that the petitioners have no criminal antecedents, I am of the definite view that the petitioners’ further detention is unnecessary. Hence, I am inclined to release the petitioners on bail. In the result, the application is allowed, by directing the petitioners to be released on bail on them executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each -:6:- with two solvent sureties each for the like sum, to the satisfaction of the court having jurisdiction, which shall be subject to the following conditions:
(i) The petitioners shall appear before the
Investigating Officer on every Saturday between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m for a period of one month or till the final report is laid, whichever is earlier. They shall also appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required;
(ii) The petitioners shall not directly or indirectly
make any inducement, threat or procure to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any Police Officer or tamper with the evidence in any manner, whatsoever;
(iii) The petitioners shall not commit any offence while he is on bail; -:7:-
(iv) The petitioners shall surrender their passport, if
any, before the court below at the time of execution of the bond. If they have no passports, they shall file an affidavits to the effect before the court below on the date of execution of the bond;
(v) In case of violation of any of the conditions
mentioned above, the jurisdictional court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation of bail, if any filed, and pass orders on the same, in accordance with law.
(vi) Applications for deletion/modification of the bail conditions shall be moved and entertained by the court below.
(vii) Needless to mention, it would be well within the powers of the Investigating Officer to investigate the matter and, if necessary, to effect recoveries on the -:8:-
information, if any, given by the petitioner even while the petitioner is on bail as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another [2020 (1) KHC 663]. Sd/- C.S.DIAS,JUDGE mtk/01.02.24 -:9:- APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 679/2024 PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE A1 A TRUE COPY OF THE F.I.R. IN CRIME NO: PATHANAMTHITTA. ANNEXURE A2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16.01.2024 IN CRL.M.P. NO.158/2024 ON THE FILES OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE II, PATHANAMTHITTA.