The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court has the discretion to allow bail if it finds the continued detention of the accused unnecessary, especially when the investigation related to the accused is practically complete and there are no criminal antecedents.

Headnote:
Bail Application - Criminal Procedure - The court allowed the bail application of the petitioner, who was accused of facilitating an attack, based on the finding that the petitioner's continued detention was unnecessary and that the investigation related to the petitioner was practically complete.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner filed a bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in a case where he was accused of facilitating an attack. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner and the fifth accused facilitated the accused 1 to 3 to carry out the attack on the de facto complainant.
Finding of the Court:

After evaluating the materials and considering the petitioner's detention, the court found that the petitioner's continued detention was unnecessary and decided to allow the bail application. The court directed the petitioner to be released on bail with specific conditions.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner's continued detention was necessary, considering the allegations against him and the stage of the investigation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the finding that the petitioner's detention was unnecessary, as the investigation related to the petitioner was practically complete, and the recovery had been effected. The court also considered the petitioner's lack of criminal antecedents.
Final Decision: The court allowed the bail application and directed the petitioner to be released on bail with specific conditions.

ORDER

The application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the fourth accused in crime No.134/2024 of the Aroor Police Station, Alappuzha, registered against the accused (five in number), for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Secs.324, 326 and 307 read with Sec.34 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The crux of the prosecution case is that: on 5.2.2024 at around 11.00 p.m, the accused 1 to 3 had assaulted the de facto complainant and caused grievous Bail Application No. 1705 of 2024 injuries to him. The accused 4 and 5 facilitated the accused 1 to 3 to carry out the attack by catching hold of the de facto complainant. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences.

3. Heard; Sri.P.Abani, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt.Neema T.V, the learned Public Prosecutor.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusations levelled against him. A reading of Annexure A1 FIR would substantiate that the offence under Sec.307 may not be attracted as against the petitioner, since going by the prosecution case, the petitioner only facilitated the accused 1 to 3 to carry out the attack. The specific overt act is Bail Application No. 1705 of 2024 alleged against the accused 1 to 3. Pursuant to Annexure A2 order, the petitioner surrendered before the Investigating Officer and he was remanded to judicial custody on 22.2.2024. The petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last 24 days. The investigation, so far as it relates to the petitioner, is practically complete and recovery has been effected. Hence, the petitioner’s further detention is unnecessary. Therefore, the application may be allowed.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. Nonetheless, she conceded to the fact that it was the accused 1 to 3 who carried out the attack on the injured. The specific allegation against the petitioner is that he and the fifth accused facilitated the accused 1 to 3 to Bail Application No. 1705 of 2024 carry out the attack. She prayed that the application may be dismissed.

6. On an evaluation of the materials placed on record, it is clear that it was the accused 1 to 3 who attacked the de facto complainant. The specific overt act alleged against the petitioner is that he and the fifth accused caught hold of the de facto complainant and facilitated the accused 1 to 3 to carry out the attack.

7. After bestowing my anxious consideration to the facts, rival submission made across the Bar, the materials placed on record, especially taking note of the fact that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 22.2.2023, that the investigation, so far as it relates to the petitioner, is practically complete, that the recovery has been effected Bail Application No. 1705 of 2024 and further that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents, I am of the view that the petitioner’s continued detention is unnecessary. Hence, I am inclined to allow the bail application.

In the result, the application is allowed, by directing the petitioner to be released on bail on him executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) 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 petitioner 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, Bail Application No. 1705 of 2024 whichever is earlier. He shall also appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required;

(ii) The petitioner 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 t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document