Bibin C.S @ Vipin vs State Of Kerala

C.S.Dias, J

The application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the second accused in Crime No.298/2023 of the Thrithala Police Station, Palakkad, registered against the accused (two in number), for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Secs. 143, 147, 148, 341, 324 and 326 read with Sec.149 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was arrested on 29.2.2024.

The essence of the prosecution case is that: on 13.05.2023 at 00.00 hours, the accused 1 to 6, in prosecution of their common intention, formed an unlawful assembly and obstructed the first informant. Then the first accused hit him with stumps and he sustained a fracture on his right wrist. Similarly, the second accused prevented the friend of the first informant, namely, Ratheesh and attacked him with an iron rod and he suffered a fracture on his left elbow. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences.

Heard; Sri.Sreehari.R, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. Seetha.S, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusations levelled against him. The offence under Sec.326 will not be attracted to the facts of the case. In any given case, the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 29.2.2024, the investigation in the case is practically complete and recovery has been effected. Therefore, the petitioner’s further detention is not necessary. Hence, the application may be allowed.

The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. She submitted that the petitioner had hit the friend of the first informant with an iron rod and he suffered a fracture on his left elbow. She made available the discharge certificate to substantiate her assertion. She submitted that if the petitioner is released on bail, it may hamper the investigation. Hence, the application may be dismissed.

On an overall appreciation of the facts, the materials placed on record, the rival submissions made across the Bar, especially taking into account the fact that the first accused has already been enlarged on bail by the Court of Session, Palakkad and further that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 29.2.2024, that the investigation in the case is practically complete and that the recovery has been effected, I am of the definite view that the petitioner’s further detention is unnecessary. Hence,  I  am  inclined  to  allow  the  bail application.

In the result, the application is allowed, by directing the petitioner to be released on bail on him executing a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum, to the satisfaction of the court having jurisdiction, which shall be subject to the following conditions:

(i) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer on every Saturday between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m till the final report is laid. He shall also appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required;

(ii) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or procure 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 in any manner, whatsoever;

(iii) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while he is on bail;

(iv) The petitioner shall surrender his passport, if any, before the court below at the time of execution of the bond. If he has no passport, he shall file an affidavit to the effect before the court below on the date of execution of the bond;

(v) In case of violation of any of the conditions mentioned above, the jurisdictional court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation of bail, if any filed, and pass orders on the same, in accordance with law.

(vi) Applications for deletion/modification of the bail conditions shall be moved and entertained by the court below.

(vii) Needless to mention, it would be well within the powers of the Investigating Officer to investigate the matter and, if necessary, to effect recoveries on the information, if any, given by the petitioner even while the petitioner is on bail as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another [2020 (1) KHC 663].