High CourtsSingle Bench

Asheera Beevi vs State Of Kerala

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 2 November 2023 · Citation: (2023) 11 KL CK 0048

HON’BLE JUDGES
Mohammed Nias C.P., J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 439 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 34, 109, 120B(1), 324, 326, 341, 394, 450
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Bail Application No. 9119 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

14 paragraphs · 466 words

Mohammed Nias C.P., J

1.

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

2.

The petitioners are accused Nos.6 & 7 in Crime No.598/2023 of Vandiperiyar Police Station, Idukki, for having committed offences punishable under Sections 109, 120B(1), 450, 341, 324, 326, 394, 307 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3.

The prosecution case is that due to the property dispute between the 5th accused and the defacto complainant, Accused 1 to 5 conspired together, and on 16/09/23 at 1.30 AM, accused 1 to 4, on the instruction of the 5th Accused trespassed into the house of the defacto complainant situated at Karikinnam Chira, Manjumala Village and the accused caught hold of his neck, chest and legs while he was lying on his bed in his bedroom and when the defacto complainant blocked the stabbing with a knife, it caused injuries to both his hands and the accused persons hit him with iron rods and caused injuries to him and thus the accused committed the aforesaid offences.

4.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would say that the petitioners are innocent and falsely implicated with ulterior motives. At any rate, he points out that the petitioners have been in custody since 19.09.2023, and continued custody of the petitioners is unnecessary.

5.

The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the petition.

6.

After having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor and considering the fact that on account of the dispute between the 5th accused and the defacto complainant, the incident occurred and accused Nos.4 & 5 were enlarged on bail, that the petitioners have been in custody since 19.09.2023, that they are the wife and son of the defacto complainant and no apprehension being raised by the prosecution that if released on bail the petitioners are likely to abscond, I am inclined to grant bail.

Accordingly, this application is allowed, and the petitioners are granted bail subject to the following conditions:-

1.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 court having jurisdiction;

2.They shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when directed to appear.

3.They shall not intimidate or attempt to influence the witnesses, nor shall tamper with the evidence or do anything that might adversely affect the trial;

4.They shall not commit any offence while on bail;

5.They shall not leave the Country without the permission of the Court having jurisdiction;

6.

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