High CourtsSingle Bench

Abhiraj vs State Of Kerala

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 17 August 2021 · Citation: (2021) 08 KL CK 0145

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ziyad Rahman A.A, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 439 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 420 · Information Technology Act, 2000 — Section 66(d) · Kerala Police Act, 2011 — Section 120(O)
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Bail Appl. No. 6119 Of 2021
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

33 paragraphs · 676 words

Ziyad Rahman A.A., J

1.

This is an application for regular bail filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.

2.

The petitioners are the 3rd and 4th accused in Crime No.1534 of 2020 of Chavara Police Station, Kollam District. The offences alleged against the

petitioners are under Sections 365, 367, 342, 201 and 307 read with Section 34 of the IPC.

3.

The basic allegation against the accused in crime is that, on 08.05.2020, the petitioners along with the other accused persons in furtherance of their

common intention to attack the brother of the injured, hit the scooter of the injured with a car and thereafter abducted him and brutally assaulted. The

crime was registered on the basis of the first information furnished by the brother of the victim who according to the petitioners, is a police officer.

4.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor.

5.

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, the petitioners are innocent of all the allegations and they were implicated in the case on

account of the influence exerted by the de facto complainant who is a police officer. According to them, the prosecution case was that, the assault of

the victim was committed by the accused persons for preventing the injured from pursuing his relation ship with the niece of the 1st petitioner herein.

Now, the learned counsel for the petitioners points out that, all the disputes are settled and the marriage between the victim and the niece of the 1st

petitioner is already fixed and in pursuance to the same a notice of intended marriage as evidenced by Annexure A3 is already moved. The learned

counsel for the petitioners further points out that the de facto complainant and the victim is in enimical terms and in order to prevent the marriage

which is going to be solemnised on the basis of the understanding between the accused persons and the injured, this arrest was caused to be made at

the instance of the de facto complainant who is a police officer. It is evident from the records that, in connection with the same, the petitioners were

arrested on 06.08.2021, since then they are in custody.

6.

It is evident from the records that, the investigation has progressed considerably and further incarceration of the petitioners do not appear to be

necessary. Apparently, the case is registered on 08.05.2020 and the arrest is made only on 06.08.2021. The learned Public Prosecutor seriously

opposes the said application highlighting that if the petitioners were released on bail it may adversely affect the progress of the investigation. However

it is evident from records that, eventhough the investigation is going on for the past more than one year, the arrest could be made only in 06.08.2021.

In such circumstances, this Court finds some force in the contentions put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioners particularly in view of the

fact that the de facto complainant is a police officer. In such circumstances, the petitioners can be released on bail subject to the stringent conditions

and accordingly the bail application is allowed:-

(i) The petitioners shall be released on bail on executing a bond for Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the

satisfaction of the jurisdictional Magistrate/Court.

(ii) The petitioners shall fully co-operate with the investigation.

(iii) The petitioners shall appear before the investigating officer between 10.00 a.m and 11.00 a.m on every Wednesday until the filing of final report.

(iv) The petitioners shall also appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required by him.

(v) The petitioners shall not commit any offence of like nature while on bail.

(vi) The petitioners shall not make any attempt to contact any of the prosecution witnesses, directly or through any other person, or any other way try to tamper with

the evidence or influence any witnesses or other persons related to the investigation.

(vii) The petitioners shall not leave State of Kerala without the permission of the trial Court.