Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(KER) 29176
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P. G. Ajithkumar, J
PRAVEEN P – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Bail Application No. 10561 of 2022
For the Appellants/Petitioners: K.B.ARUNKUMAR, POOJA K.S.
For the Respondents: SRI.P.G. MANU - SR.PP
The court grants bail considering the offense's nature and absence of evidence for further detention.
Headnote:This Bail Application seeks relief under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The petitioner, arrested for allegedly causing injuries to a Grama Panchayat member using an iron rod, asserts his innocence claiming no evidence against him. The Public Prosecutor argues against bail citing the offense's severity. Considering the offense's nature, the court finds further detention unnecessary, thus granting bail under specified conditions.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. allegations of serious offenses against the petitioner. (Para 2 , 4) |
| 2. contention of innocence and public prosecutor's opposition to bail. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. court's ruling allowing bail under conditions. (Para 7) |
ORDER
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.387/2022 of Kanakakkunnu Police Station, Alappuzha. He allegedly had committed the offences punishable under Sections 294 (b), 506 (i), 326, 308 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code , 1860.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
4. The prosecution allegation is that on 10.11.2022 at 8.15 pm, on the road in front of the house of the defacto complainant, at Muthukulam Vadakku Muri in Muthukulam Village, the petitioner, in furtherance of common intention of him and the other accused, abused one Baiju, who is a member of the Grama Panchayat and beat on his hands and legs using an iron rod, causing severe injuries including a fracture. Hence, the accused are alleged to have committed the offences mentioned above.
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 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 deserve only to be dismissed.
7. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor, and considering the nature and gravity of the offence, 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 him 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.
