High CourtsSingle Bench

Dixon.K.J vs State Of Kerala

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 6 June 2023 · Citation: (2023) 06 KL CK 0029

HON’BLE JUDGES
Bechu Kurian Thomas, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 439 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 109, 118, 120B, 201, 212, 365, 394, 395
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Bail Application No. 4267 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

16 paragraphs · 462 words

Bechu Kurian Thomas, J

1.

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

2.

Petitioner is the 9th accused in Crime No. 178/2023 of Meenakshipuram Police Station, Palakkad, alleging offences punishable under Sections 120B, 365, 394, 395, 212, 109, 118 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code 1860.

3.

According to the prosecution, pursuant to the criminal conspiracy between accused 1 to 16, to commit dacoity, on 26.03.2023, accused 1 to 10, intercepted a bus and abducted the defacto complainant from the bus and robbed him of his gold ornaments and also a mobile phone and thereafter, left him in the lurch and thereby committed the offences alleged.

4.

Sri. K.Ravi, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the entire prosecution allegations are false and the incident as alleged had not occurred. It was further submitted that the petitioner was arrested on 29.03.2023 and that considering the nature of allegation against the petitioner, further detention ought not be permitted.

5.

Smt. Neema, the learned Public Prosecutor, opposed the application and submitted that the investigation has revealed that the petitioner was part of the conspiracy to commit the offence and therefore, having regard to the seriousness of the offence, the petitioner ought not to be released on bail.

6.

I have considered the rival contentions.

7.

Having regard to the period of detention already undergone from 29.03.2023 and also the nature of the allegations and the offences alleged against the petitioner, I am of the view that further detention of the petitioner would not serve any purpose especially since, interrogation of the petitioner is already over and the investigation has reached its final stages. The vehicle was also recovered.

8.

In view of the above circumstances, I am satisfied that it is a fit a case to release the petitioner on bail.

Accordingly, this application is allowed and the petitioner is released on bail on the following conditions:-

(a) Petitioner shall be released on bail on him 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 court having jurisdiction.

(b) Petitioner shall co-operate with the trial of the case.

(c) Petitioner shall not intimidate or attempt to influence the witnesses; nor shall he attempt to tamper with the evidence.

(d) Petitioner shall not commit any similar offences while he is on bail.

(e) Petitioner shall not leave the country without the permission of the jurisdictional Court.

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