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
34 paragraphs · 296 wordsThe petitioners herein are the two accused in Crime
No.907 of 2017 of the Pothenkode Police Station registered
under Section 392 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code .
They seek regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure. The application filed by them for
regular bail was dismissed by the learned Judicial First Class
Magistrate-I, Attingal on 18.09.2017. The petitioners have
been in judicial custody since 07.07.2017.
The prosecution case is that at about 10.30 a.m
on 7.7.2017, the two accused, by force, snatched away a
gold chain from the possession of one Shilaja. The case is
now pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate
Court-I, Attingal as C.C 1232/2017. Pending the trial, the
petitioners approached the trial court for bail, but their
request for bail was disallowed. The court below has
already examined some witnessed including the de facto
complainant. It appears that the main witnesses including
the de facto complainant turned hostile during trial in view
of an amicable settlement made by the parties outside the
court. Being a non-compoundable offence, the composition
made by them cannot be accepted by the court, and the
trial will have to be proceeded in the usual course. Anyway,
in the above circumstances, I feel it appropriate to grant bail
to the petitioners. Their continued detention is not felt
necessary.
In the result, this application for bail is allowed.
The petitioner will be released on bail on his executing a
bond with two solvent sureties for 30,000/- (Rupees Fifty
thousand only) each to the satisfaction of the court below
having jurisdiction. Bail is granted on condition that;
a. One of the sureties shall be a Keralite
having some sort of connection with the
petitioners (family or business connection) having
definite identity.