IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF MAY 2022 / 14TH VAISAKHA, 1944
BAIL APPL. NO. 9747 OF 2021
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMC 3124/2021 OF DISTRICT COURT &
SESSIONS COURT, PALAKKAD
PETITIONERS:
1 SUBASH
AGED 39 YEARS
S/O.APPUKUTTAN, KARINGARAPULLY, KODUMBU, PALAKKAD
DISTRICT.
2 SIVAN
AGED 32 YEARS
S/O.MARIMUTHU, KARINGARAPULLY, KODUMBU, PALAKKAD
DISTRICT.
3 VINU R.
AGED 35 YEARS
UDAYAPADAM HOUSE, KARINGARAPULLY, KODUMBU, PALAKKAD
DISTRICT.
BY ADV NIREESH MATHEW
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF KERALA
REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM.
SMT.SREEJA.V, SR.PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
04.05.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
BAIL APPL. NO. 9747 OF 2021
2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------
B.A.No.9747 of 2021
-------------------------------
Dated this the 4TH day of May, 2022
ORDER
This Bail Application is filed under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code.
2. The petitioners are the accused in crime No.1925/2021 of Town Police Station, Palakkad. The above case is registered against the petitioners alleging offence punishable under Section 341, 294(b), 323, 324 and 307 read with 34 of the IPC.
3. The prosecution case is that on 28.10.2021 at 8 pm, the defacto complainant was talking to his friend at a place named Chenkol. On account of previous enmity of the accused towards the defacto complainant, the 1st accused wrongfully restrained the defacto complainant and the other petitioners beat the defacto complainant with iron rods. It is also alleged that the petitioners fisted the defacto complainant on his face. It is also alleged that the 1st accused in the case stabbed the defacto complainant with a knife on his abdomen. Hence it is alleged that the accused has committed the following offences.
BAIL APPL. NO. 9747 OF 2021 3
4. Heard counsel for the petitioners and the Public Prosecutor. The Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the there is no serious allegation against the petitioners who are accused nos. 2 to 4. The Counsel submitted that the petitioners has not used any weapon even if the entire allegations are accepted. The Counsel submitted that the petitioners are ready to abide by any conditions that this Court grant them bail. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. But the Public Prosecutor submitted that petitioners 2 and 3 used iron rods. The Public Prosecutor also submitted that the defacto complainant sustained very serious injuries. The Public Prosecutor submitted that the custodial interrogation of the petitioners are necessary. But going through the facts, it is clear that the 1st petitioner has not used any weapon and 2 nd and 3rd petitioners used iron rods. In such circumstances, the orders under Section 438 can be passed in favor of the 1 st petitioner and the other petitioners can be directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer and there can be direction to the Investigating Officer to interrogate the petitioners and produce them before the Court concerned on the same day and the Court concerned can be directed to consider their bail application in accordance with law. BAIL APPL. NO. 9747 OF 2021 4
5. Considering the dictum laid down in the above decision and considering the facts and circumstances of this case Bail Application of the 1st petitioner is allowed with the following directions:
1. The 1st petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer within two weeks from today and shall undergo interrogation.
2. After interrogation, if the Investigating Officer propose to arrest the 1st petitioner, he shall be released on bail on executing a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting officer concerned.
3. The 1st petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation as and when required. The 1st petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation and shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such BAIL APPL. NO. 9747 OF 2021 5 facts to the Court or to any police officer.
4. 1st petitioner shall not leave India without permission of the jurisdictional Court.
5. 1st petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.
6. The 1st petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Mondays at 10 am till final report is filed.
7. If any of the above conditions are violated by the 1st petitioner, the jurisdictional Court can cancel the bail in accordance to law, even though the bail is granted by this Court. The prosecution and the victim are at liberty to approach the jurisdictional Court to cancel the bail, if any of the above conditions are violated. As far as petitioners no. 2 and 3 are concerned, they can surrender before the Investigating Officer within two weeks from BAIL APPL. NO. 9747 OF 2021 6 today. The Investigating Officer on surrender, will interrogate the petitioners 2 & 3 and thereafter make recovery, if any. After that, they will be produced before the Jurisdictional Court in accordance with law on the same day. If any application for bail is filed by the petitioners no. 2 and 3 at the time of their production by the Police, the jurisdictional Court shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders on it, preferably on the date of filing of the bail application itself if advance copy of the bail application is given to the Prosecutor concerned.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE Nsd