Ajith vs State Of Kerala

C.S.Dias, J

The application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the sixth accused in crime No.225/2024 of the Nedumbassery Police Station, Ernakulam, registered against the accused (twelve in number), for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Secs.279, 323, 308 and 427 r/w Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short, 'IPC'). The petitioner was arrested on 29.02.2024.

The essence of the prosecution case is that: on 19.02.2024 at around 3.45 hours, while the defacto complainant was driving his vehicle, a car bearing No.KL-07-DC-7476 overtook him at high speed and hit on his car without stopping. The defacto complainant followed the said car and then another car also intervened in the said incident. All the vehicles stopped at the Nedumbassery Airport. When the defacto complainant questioned the driver of the first vehicle, the accused 1 to 4 assaulted the defacto complainant. Then the other accused, who were traveling in the other vehicle, also assaulted the defacto complainant. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences.

Heard; Sri.T.K.Sandeep, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt.Shynimole V.O., the learned Public Prosecutor.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusations leveled against him. A reading of Annexure-I FIR substantiates that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the crime. In any given case, the offence under Section 308 of the IPC will not be attracted as against the petitioner. The said offence has been incorporated only for the purpose of denying bail to the petitioner. The petitioner has been in judicial custody since 29.02.2024. The investigation in the case is practically complete and recovery has been effected. Therefore, the petitioner's further detention is unnecessary. Hence, the application may be allowed.

The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. She submitted that the investigation in the case is in progress. She stated that the petitioner is a person with criminal antecedents, since he is involved in six other crimes, which has been noted by the learned Magistrate in Annexure -II order. She stated that if the petitioner is released on bail, he would intimidate the witnesses and sabotage the investigation. Hence, the application may be dismissed.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner refuted the above submissions and drew the attention of this Court to the six crimes allegedly registered against the petitioner. He stated that only one of the crimes a non bailable offence is attributed against the petitioner. Whereas, all the other crimes are registered for minor offences and also prior to the year 2020. Therefore, merely because the petitioner has some antecedents, the same shall not be taken as a ground to deny bail to the petitioner.

On a consideration of the facts, the rival submissions made across the Bar, the materials placed on record, particularly taking note of the fact that there is no specific overt act alleged against the petitioner that he inflicted injuries to the defacto complainant so as to attract the offence under Section 308 of the IPC, that he has been in judicial custody since 29.02.2024, that the investigation in the case is practically complete and recovery has been effected, notwithstanding the fact that the petitioner is alleged to have antecedents, I am of the definite view that the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail. Hence, I am inclined to allow the bail application.

In the result, the application is allowed, by directing the petitioner to be released on bail on him executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two  solvent  sureties  each  for  the  like  sum, to  the satisfaction of the court having jurisdiction, which shall be subject to the following conditions:

(i) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer on every Saturday between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m for a period of one month or till the final report is laid, whichever is earlier. He shall also appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required;

(ii) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or procure to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any Police Officer or tamper with the evidence in any manner, whatsoever;

(iii) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while he is on bail;

(iv) The petitioner shall surrender his passport, if any, before the court below at the time of execution of the bond. If he has no passport, he shall file an affidavit to the effect before the court below on the date of execution of the bond;

(v) The petitioner shall furnish his present address and permanent address, and his mobile phone number to the court below and the Investigating Officer;

(vi) In case of violation of any of the conditions mentioned above, the jurisdictional court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation of bail, if any filed, and pass orders on the same, in accordance with law.

(vii) Applications for deletion/modification of the bail conditions shall be moved and entertained by the court below.

(viii) Needless to mention, it would be well within the powers of the Investigating Officer to investigate the matter and, if necessary, to effect recoveries on the information, if any, given by the petitioner even while the petitioner is on bail as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Anr. [2020 (1) KHC 663].