G. Jerin Raj vs State Of Kerala

Mohammed Nias C.P.J

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

The petitioner is the fourth accused in Crime No.589/2023 of Peermedu Police Station, Idukki District, for having committed offences punishable under Sections 323, 326 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

The prosecution case is that on 10.07.2023 at about 5.00 p.m., a wordy altercation and scuffle between the petitioner and the deceased regarding a cricket match in front of the Siloam Prayer House building, Koduvakarnam Kara, Elappara village and that the petitioner pushed down the deceased and assaulted him with a cricket bat on the head of the deceased. On 11.07.2023, the deceased was taken for treatment to Peermedu Taluk Hospital and there from Medical College Hospital, Kottayam, and he succumbed to the injuries sustained to him on 15.07.2023, thereby committing the above offence.

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

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would say that the petitioner is totally innocent of the allegations and falsely implicated with ulterior motives. At any rate, he points out that the petitioner has been in custody since 16/07/2023, and further incarceration of the petitioner is unnecessary. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the deceased had come to the ground where cricket was being played in an inebriated condition, and the deceased, who had many antecedents against him, attacked A1. It was only as a measure of self defence that he resisted the defacto complainant. It was a hit with a cricket bat that resulted in the death. It is also pointed out that the charge sheet has already been filed and that he is a student of Business Administration. The date of the incident was 10.07.2023, but he was arrested only on 16/7.2023. Under such circumstances, he prayed for the petitioner to be released on bail.

Learned Public Prosecutor opposing the bail application submitted that the petitioner's hit with the cricket bat caused the death. There are eyewitnesses to the incident, the charge against the petitioner is grave, and ample evidence supports the charge. He also pointed out that the report of the investigating officer clearly shows that the petitioner had hit the deceased, following which the deceased fell down, and after he fell down using a cricket bat, the petitioner had hit on the head of the deceased.

Having considered the rival submissions, I notice the following:-The statements of CW2, CW3, CW4 and CW5 clearly show that the deceased was fully drunk and had come to the ground where the petitioner and others were playing and had picked a quarrel with the petitioner by using inappropriate language as well. The petitioner had pushed the deceased, and he fell down. and even lying in that position, he was continuously abusing the petitioner, and it was then the petitioner hit him with a cricket bat Under such circumstances, I find considerable force in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was actually exercising his right of private defence. Whether he has exceeded that right is a matter for trial.

Taking note of the age of the petitioner, who is 20 years, and that he is a student with no criminal antecedents, the final report already having been filed, I do not think that further incarceration of the petitioner is necessary, as there is no apprehension raised by the prosecution that if the bail is granted to the petitioner, he is likely to abscond. Under such circumstances, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, and he is released on bail on the following conditions:

i. The petitioner shall be released on bail on executing a separate 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; one of the sureties shall be a parent or close relative of the petitioner.

ii. He shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when directed to appear.

iii. He shall not intimidate or attempt to influence the witnesses, nor shall he tamper with the evidence or do anything that might adversely affect the trial;

iv. He shall not commit any offence while on bail;

v. He shall not leave the State of Kerala without the permission of the Court having jurisdiction;

vi. He shall not leave India without the permission of the jurisdictional Court and, if he has a passport, shall deposit the same before the Trial Court within a week.

vii. He shall furnish his present address and his mobile number to the Court concerned and the investigating officer.

viii. In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the jurisdictional Court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation of bail and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.