Alex vs State Of Kerala

C.S.Dias, J

The application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, by the sole accused in Crime No.1119/2023 of the Pozhiyoor Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, registered against the petitioner for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 341, 323, 324, 326 and 506(i) of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was arrested on 15.12.2023.

The gist of the prosecution case is that: on 02.11.2023 at about 11.35 p.m, accused 1 and 2 out of their previous animosity towards the informant and in furtherance of their common intention uttered abusive words at the informant and attacked him with a key and hit him on his nose. The informant fell down due to the assault and sustained grievous injuries, including a fracture of his nasal bone. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences.

Heard Sri.Joy C. Paul, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.C.S.Hrithwik, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the crime. The petitioner has been in judicial custody since 15.12.2023. The investigation in the case is practically complete. The petitioner is the sole breadwinner of the family. He is willing to abide by any stringent condition that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, the application may be allowed.

The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. He made available the statement filed by the investigating officer and also the Accident Register – cum – Wound Certificate. He submitted that the investigation in the case is in progress and it has turned out that the petitioner is the sole accused in the crime. There is every likelihood of the petitioner intimidating the witnesses and tampering with the evidence. Hence, the application may be dismissed.

After bestowing my anxious consideration to the facts and the materials placed on record, particularly taking note of the fact that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 15.12.2023, recovery has been effected and that the investigation in the case is practically complete and the petitioner is found to be the sole accused in the crime, I am of the view that the petitioner's continued detention is unnecessary. Hence, I hold that the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail, but subject to stringent conditions.

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 filed, 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) 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.

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

(vii) 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 another [2020 (1) KHC 663].