Basil vs State Of Kerala

Gopinath P, J

The petitioners in these cases are the accused in Crime No.245/2022 of Kuttampuzha Police Station, Ernakulam District alleging commission of offences under Sections 324, 341, 307, 394 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners attacked the de facto complainant, his brother and a friend of the de facto complainant and caused injuries to them by stabbing them with a knife and also that they took away the gold chain worth Rs.1,00,000/- belonging to the de facto complainant.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioners are absolutely innocent in the matter and they have been falsely implicated. It is submitted that the de facto complainant executed a notorised affidavit which indicates that the allegation of theft of gold chain will no longer lie against the petitioners. It is submitted that the only issue between the petitioners and the de facto complainant is regarding the alleged attack on the de facto complainant, his brother and a friend of the de facto complainant. It is submitted that the petitioners have been in custody for 32 days.

The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the grant of bail. The circumstances of the case appearing against the petitioners are pointed out to show that the petitioners are not entitled to bail at this point of time. It is submitted that the affidavit sworn to by the de facto complainant only relates to the allegation of theft of the gold chain does not actually exonerate the petitioners in respect of the all the allegations levelled against them and that the investigation is progressing and the grant of bail at this stage may not be conducive to the prosecution. It is submitted that the 1st accused has criminal antecedents and a case is resisted against him in the year 2017 alleging commission of offences under Sections 332 and 353 of the IPC.

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit in reply that the 1st accused is a lorry driver by profession and the case registered in the year 2017 pertains to an issue with a Motor Vehicle Inspector and the same should not be a reason to deny bail.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the nature of the allegations and taking into considering the fact that the petitioners have been in custody for 32 days I am of the view that the petitioners can be granted bail subject to conditions. The criminal antecedents reported against the 1st accused does not compel me to deny bail to him.

In the result this bail application is allowed. It is directed that the petitioner shall be released on bail, subject to the following conditions:-

(i) The petitioners shall execute separate bonds for sums of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court;

(ii) The Petitioners shall report before the Investigating officer in Crime No.245/2022 of Kuttampuzha Police Station on every Saturday at 11 a.m until filing of final report;

(iii) The petitioners shall not attempt to interfere with the investigation, influence or intimidate the de facto complainant or any witness in Crime No.245/2022 of Kuttampuzha Police Station;

(iv) The petitioners shall not enter the local limits of Kuttampuzha Police Station except for the purpose of complying with condition No.(ii) above;

(v) The petitioners shall not involve in any other crime while on bail.

If any of the aforesaid conditions are violated, the Investigating officer in Crime No.245/2022 of Kuttampuzha Police Station may file an application before the jurisdictional Court for cancellation of bail.