High CourtsSingle Bench

Aneesh vs State Of Kerala

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 14 September 2021 · Citation: (2021) 09 KL CK 0076

HON’BLE JUDGES
Shircy V, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 439 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 34, 294(b), 308, 324, 341 · Arms Act, 1959 — Section 27
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Bail Appl. No. 6878 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

14 paragraphs · 674 words

Shircy V, J

1.

Application for regular bail.

2.

The petitioner who is the fourth accused in Crime No.981 of 2021 of Ezhukone Police Station, Kollam District registered for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 341, 324, 308 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act, has moved this application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

3.

The prosecution allegation is as follows :-The first accused who was entertaining enmity towards the defacto complainant, in order to wreck vengeance upon him, on 30.08.2021 at about 17.15 hours, along with the other accused wrongfully restrained him at a place near 'Kadakkodu Madankavu Temple' and showered obscene words towards him and the second accused has hacked him with a sword aiming towards his head. The defacto complainant, some how or other evaded the same, but it fell on his hand and caused deep injury. When the defacto complainant tried to escape from the clutches of these petitioners, the second accused chased him with a sword raising death threats and the other accused together have created a horrendous situation in that area. Thereby, they have committed the aforesaid offences.

4.

The petitioner has been in custody since 31.08.2021.

5.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well the learned Public Prosecutor.

6.

The arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the prosecution has no case that this petitioner has caused any injuries to the defacto complainant. The specific overt act is alleged against the accused Nos. 1 and 2 and there is no specific allegation against this petitioner in causing injuries to the defacto complainant. So also the prosecution has no case that this petitioner was having any weapon with him at the time of the alleged incident. In fact, this petitioner has absolutely no participation in the alleged crime, as per the prosecution case, itself. But he is undergoing unnecessary and undeserved trauma of arrest from the date of his arrest, i.e. on 31.08.2021.

7.

According to the learned Public Prosecutor also specific allegation is against the first and the second accused. It is fairly submitted that this petitioner is also having no criminal antecedents. The first and fourth accused alone were apprehended by the investigating agency and the accused Nos. 2 and 3 are yet to be apprehended.

8.

The materials so far collected by the investigating agency do not indicate that this petitioner has caused any injury to the defacto complainant at the time of occurrence. Therefore, I think that further detention of this petitioner may not be required for the investigating agency to proceed with the investigation of the case. Moreover, there is absolutely no allegation by the prosecution that he has used any weapon so as to attack the defacto complainant, at the time of occurrence. The recovery has to be effected, after apprehending the second accused, who was in possession of the sword and with that sword alone the defacto complainant had sustained injuries. Therefore, the presence of this petitioner is not required for the investigating agency to complete the investigation of the case. Hence, I am inclined to enlarge him on bail subject to the following conditions :-

(i) The petitioner shall be released on bail on executing a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand only)with two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the court having jurisdiction.

(ii) He shall appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation as and when required by him, in writing.

(iii) The petitioner 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 facts  to the   court or  to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

(iv) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail.

In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the learned Magistrate/Judge is empowered to cancel the bail in accordance with the law.