High CourtsSingle Bench

Anil Kumar, @ Muthuppattar vs State Of Kerala

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 6 June 2023 · Citation: (2023) 06 KL CK 0059

HON’BLE JUDGES
Bechu Kurian Thomas, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 439 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 294(B), 332, 506(i)
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Bail Application No. 4253 Of 2023
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

15 paragraphs · 479 words

Bechu Kurian Thomas, J

1.

This is an application for regular bail filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

2.

Petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No. 09/2023 of Ettumanoor Police Station, Kottayam, which is now pending as C.C.No. 70/2023 on the files of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Ettumanoor. The offences alleged against the petitioner are punishable under Sections 294(B), 332 and 506(i) of the Indian Penal Code 1860. The petitioner was arrested on 03.01.2023 and has been in custody since then.

3.

According to the prosecution, on 02.01.2023 at 3.30 p.m, the accused shouted obscene words on a public servant and also hit him with a reaper on his left shoulder and thereby committed the offences alleged.

4.

Sri. Jinu Joseph, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the entire prosecution allegations are false and the incident as alleged had not occurred. It was submitted that the prosecution case is based upon a false allegation, because the petitioner had given a statement against a Circle Inspector of Police as can be seen from Annexure-A2 and that entire prosecution allegations are false.

5.

Smt. T.V. Neema, the learned Public Prosecutor, opposed the application and submitted that petitioner is involved in ten other crimes and therefore, releasing him on bail would cause prejudice to the investigation. It was also submitted that the petitioner attacked the Assistant Sub Inspector of Police and therefore, no leniency ought to be shown.

6.

I have considered the rival contentions.

7.

On a perusal of the records produced in the case, including Annexure-A2 statement, I am of the view that, notwithstanding the criminal antecedents of the petitioner, taking into reckoning the period of detention already undergone from 03.01.2023, further curtailment of the liberty of the petitioner would be prejudicial to his rights under the Constitution. Therefore, taking into consideration the period of detention already undergone, I am satisfied that this is a fit case were the petitioner can be released on bail on strict conditions.

Accordingly, this application is allowed on the following conditions:-

(a) Petitioner shall 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.

(b) Petitioner shall co-operate with the trial of the case.

(c) Petitioner shall not intimidate or attempt to influence the witnesses; nor shall he attempt to tamper with the evidence.

(d) Petitioner shall not commit any other offences while he is on bail.

(e) Petitioner  shall  not  leave  the  country without the permission of the jurisdictional Court.

In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the jurisdictional Court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation, if any, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law, notwithstanding the bail having been granted by this Court.