High CourtsSingle Bench

Bhagyaraj @ Anu vs State Of Kerala

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 3 January 2024 · Citation: (2024) 01 KL CK 0005

HON’BLE JUDGES
Mohammed Nias C.P., J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 174, 439 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 34, 302, 323, 324, 325, 341, 449
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Bail Application No. 11229 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 · 501 words

Mohammed Nias C.P., J

1.

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

2.

The petitioner is the first accused in Crime No.932/2023 of Mathilakam Police Station, Thrissur, for offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 325, 449, 302 r/w 34 of the IPC.

3.

The gist of the case is that, on 24.9.2023, the petitioner, along with another accused, in furtherance of their common intention to commit murder of the deceased, the first accused hit him on the head of the deceased with a weapon and the second accused kicked him on his ribs and thereby, sustained injuries to him. The body of the deceased was found unconscious beside the road near a toddy shop and was taken to Taluk Hospital; from there, he was declared dead. As per the intimation from the hospital, police recorded the statement of a relative of the deceased, and thereafter, a crime was registered by the police under Section 174 Cr.P.C. As per the prosecution case, further investigation revealed the involvement of the accused persons in the crime.

4.

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.

5.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would say that the petitioner is innocent and falsely implicated with ulterior motives. At any rate, he points out that the petitioner has been in custody since 25/09/2023, and continued custody of the petitioner is unnecessary.

6.

The learned public prosecutor opposed the petition and pointed out that the petitioner is not entitled to bail.

7.

After having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor, the fact that the petitioner has been in custody since 25/09/2023, that the charge sheet has already been filed on 20/12/2023, there are no other antecedents reported against the petitioner and also since there is no apprehension raised by the prosecution that if released on bail, the petitioner is likely to abscond, I hold that bail can be granted to the petitioner under strict conditions.

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

(i) The petitioner shall be released on bail on 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 jurisdictional court;

(ii) The petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer as and when directed.

(iii) The petitioner shall not tamper or attempt to tamper with the evidence or influence or try to influence the witnesses.

(iv) The petitioner shall not be involved in any other crime while on bail or leave India without the prior permission of the Court concerned.

(v) The petitioner shall not enter the territorial limits of Mathilakom Police Station, Thrissur, for a period of three months.

If any of the conditions are violated, the court concerned will be empowered to take steps for cancellation of bail as per law;