Kerala High Court
Subash vs State Of Kerala on 4 May, 2022
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
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
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
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
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
