2022 Supreme(Online)(KER) 14704
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P. G. Ajithkumar, J
SANAL – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Bail Application No. 10534 of 2022 | Crime No. 582 of 2022
For the Appellants/Petitioners: NIREESH MATHEW
For the Respondents: P.G. MANU, SR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
A bail application can be granted if the court finds further detention unnecessary, considering the nature of the offences and evidence.
Headnote:This judgment concerns a bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The petitioner, accused of offences under Sections 323, 506, and 308 r/w Section 34 of the IPC, contends innocence and challenges his detention due to lack of evidence. The prosecution opposes bail citing seriousness of the offence and potential interference with the investigation. The court finds further detention unnecessary, allowing bail with conditions. The final outcome is the grant of bail to the petitioner.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. application for bail is filed under specific sections. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. allegations and factual background of the offence. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. arguments presented by the accused and prosecution. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. court grants bail with specified conditions. (Para 7) |
O R D E R
This is an application for bail filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973.
2. The petitioner is the 1st accused in Crime No.582 of 2022 of Cherpulassery Police Station. He allegedly had committed the offences punishable under Section s 323 , 506 and 308 r/w. Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code , 1860.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.
4. The prosecution allegation is that, on 08.11.2022, at about 05.00 PM, while the candidates who contested the election held at CCST College, Cherpulassry, were returning from the college and when they reached in front of a road situated in front of the college, the petitioner had tried to attack them, but the same was prevented by the timely intervention of the de facto complainant. In order to wreck vengeance on the de facto complainant in relation to that incident and also on earlier incident with regard to tying of flags, the petitioner along with the 2nd accused, in furtherance of their common intention to inflict injuries to the de facto complainant attacked him. The petitioner using an iron chain hit on the head of the de facto complainant and the 2nd accused kicked and slapped the de facto complainant. Thus the petitioner along with the 2nd accused have committed the offences punishable under the above sections.
5. The petitioner would contend that he did not involve in the alleged crime and without any material or evidence, he has been implicated in the crime. He is innocent. The investigation in the matter has been progressed considerably and there is no reason or justification for his further detention.
6. The learned Senior Public Prosecutor would submit that considering the seriousness of the offence and the possibility of interfering with the investigation by the petitioner in the event of his release on bail, this petition deserves only to be dismissed.
7. The petitioner has been in judicial custody since 22.12.2022. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Senior Public Prosecutor, and considering the nature and gravity of the offences, further detention of the petitioner is unnecessary. I am therefore of the view that the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail.
In the result, the bail application is allowed and the petitioner is granted bail on his executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only), with two solvent sureties for the like amount each, to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate, subject to the following conditions:
(i) He shall not influence or intimidate witnesses or tamper with evidence;
(ii) He shall appear before the investigating officer as and when called for; and
(iii) During the bail period, he shall not get involved in any offence.
In case of breach of the bail conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to apply for cancellation of the bail before the jurisdictional court.