The court affirmed the right to bail under conditional terms when considering the circumstances and background of the accused.

ORDER

This is an application seeking regular bail filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023.

2. The petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.551/1994 of Chengannur Police Station. The offence alleged against the petitioner is punishable under Section

302 of the Indian Penal Code .

3. The prosecution’s case is that when the accused and CW1’s father, Kuttappanikkar, had an argument, CW1’s father, out of resentment at the accused’s obscene remarks, assaulted the accused with the intention of causing his death, or at least with the knowledge that his actions were likely to result in death. On 15.11.1994, at about 7:15 p.m., on the Pampa Irrigation Main Canal Road, between Mannilethupadi Junction and Anjilichuvadu in Ariyannoorssery, the accused and the witness’s father had an argument. During the altercation, the witness’s father allegedly abused the accused, whereupon the accused struck him on the nose and the back of the head with a piece of granite lying at the spot. The blows caused fatal injuries to the head, back, middle of the nose, and cheek, and dislodged two middle teeth from the lower jaw. The accused also kicked the victim in the navel area, causing him to fall backwards into the canal on the northern side of the road and sustain further injuries to various parts of his body. The victim succumbed to the 'head and nasal' injuries while undergoing treatment at the Kottayam Medical College Hospital.

4. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner remained absconding after the commission of the offence. The Police completed investigation and submitted final report.

5. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and proceeded the case as C.P.No.4/1997. The committal Court initiated steps under Sections 82 and 83 of the Cr.P.C. The case was placed in the list of long pending cases as L.P.No.1/1999 on 27.04.1999.

6. The petitioner was arrested on 22.09.2025 and produced before the jurisdictional Court. He has been in judicial custody since then.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Pubic Prosecutor.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had no role in the alleged incident. It is submitted that he was working abroad. 9. The petitioner filed an application seeking regular bail before the jurisdictional Magistrate. The learned Magistrate dismissed the application. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is prepared to cooperate with the trial.

10. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail plea. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that, as the incident occurred in the year 1994 and most of the material witnesses are now very aged and some are suffering from physical ailments, if the Court is inclined to grant bail, a direction may be issued to the jurisdictional court to expedite the proceedings.

11. This is a case in which the investigating agency submitted final report.

12 Having regard to the circumstances brought out, this Court is of the view that this is a fit case where bail can be granted to the petitioner on conditions.

In the result, this Bail Application is allowed as follows :

(a) The petitioner shall be released on bail on his executing bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the court below.

(b) He shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Mondays and Fridays between 10 A.M. and 11 A.M. for a period of three months or till the final report is filed, whichever is earlier.

(c) The petitioner shall surrender his passport before the jurisdictional Court. If the petitioner does not possess passport, he shall file an affidavit to that effect.

(d) He shall no