Back
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P. B. Suresh Kumar, J
RAJESH RAJENDRAN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Bail Appl./3474/2021
Bail - Criminal Procedure - Code of Criminal Procedure Section 439 - The court granted bail under Section 439, interpreting it to allow the release of accused individuals who had been in custody while balancing the interests of justice and the rights of the accused.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, accused in a serious crime involving abduction and robbery, sought bail after being in custody since April 2021 for their alleged involvement in violent and criminal conduct against a complainant.
Finding of the Court:
The court noted that other co-accused were granted bail and found no significant reason to deny bail to the petitioners, emphasizing the importance of their rights and the conditions imposed for their release.
Issues: Whether the petitioners should be granted bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure considering the nature of the charges and their custody duration.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the presence of co-accused on bail and the lack of substantial grounds against further detention warranted the granting of bail to the petitioners.
Final Decision: Bail granted to the petitioners with specific conditions.
ORDER
These are applications for regular bail filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure .
2. Petitioner in B.A.No.3474 of 2021 is the first accused and the petitioner in B.A.No.3888 of 2021 is the second accused in Crime No.377 of 2021 of Varkala Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 364A, 325 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code. Among them, the petitioner in B.A.No.3474 of 2021 is in custody since 10.04.2021 and the petitioner in B.A.No.3888 of 2021 is in custody since
9.4.2021.
3. The allegation against the accused in the case is that on 06.02.2021 at 10.40 p.m., they have intercepted the car in which the de facto complainant was travelling, assaulted the defacto complainant causing fracture of his nasal bone and thereupon, forcibly took the defacto complainant out of the car and abducted him. It is also alleged that the accused have robbed Rs.4,00,000/- carried by the defacto complainant in the car and Rs.37,000/- kept by him in his purse and also the Rolex watch worth more than Rs.1,00,000/- worn by him.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as also the Public Prosecutor.
5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the applications.
6. It is seen that there are altogether nine accused in the case of which accused Nos.4 to 8 have been enlarged on bail by this Court in terms of the order passed in B.A.No.2284 of 2021. Similarly, third accused in the case was also enlarged on bail by this court in terms of the order passed in B.A.No.3243 of 2021. It is also seen that accused 1 and 2 in the case have also been granted bail by the jurisdictional Magistrate on 12.4.2021.
In the circumstances, I am inclined to enlarge the petitioners also on bail on the following terms:
(i) The petitioners shall execute bond for a sum of ₹50,000/- each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court.
(ii) The petitioners shall appear after the lock down before the Investigating Officer on all Saturdays between 9.00 a.m. and 10.00 a.m. for a period of two months or till final report is filed, whichever is earlier.
(iii) The petitioners shall not intimidate or attempt to influence the witnesses nor shall they tamper with the evidence.
(iv)The petitioners shall not commit any offence while on bail.
(v) The petitioners shall not leave the country without the permission of the jurisdictional court.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
