Jerrin C.G vs State Of Kerala

C.S.Dias, J

The application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the fourth accused in crime No.134/2024 of the Aroor Police Station, Alappuzha, registered against the accused (five in number), for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Secs.324, 326 and 307 read with Sec.34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The crux of the prosecution case is that: on 5.2.2024 at around 11.00 p.m, the accused 1 to 3 had assaulted the de facto complainant and caused grievous injuries to him. The accused 4 and 5 facilitated the accused 1 to 3 to carry out the attack by catching hold of the de facto complainant. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences.

Heard; Sri.P.Abani, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt.Neema T.V, the learned Public Prosecutor.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusations levelled against him. A reading of Annexure A1 FIR would substantiate that the offence under Sec.307 may not be attracted as against the petitioner, since going by the prosecution case, the petitioner only facilitated the accused 1 to 3 to carry out the attack. The specific overt act is alleged against the accused 1 to 3. Pursuant to Annexure A2 order, the petitioner surrendered before the Investigating Officer and he was remanded to judicial custody on 22.2.2024. The petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last 24 days. The investigation, so far as it relates to the petitioner, is practically complete and recovery has been effected. Hence, the petitioner’s further detention is unnecessary. Therefore, the application may be allowed.

The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. Nonetheless, she conceded to the fact that it was the accused 1 to 3 who carried out the attack on the injured. The specific allegation against the petitioner is that he and the fifth accused facilitated the accused 1 to 3 to carry out the attack. She prayed that the application may be dismissed.

On an evaluation of the materials placed on record, it is clear that it was the accused 1 to 3 who attacked the de facto complainant. The specific overt act alleged against the petitioner is that he and the fifth accused caught hold of the de facto complainant and facilitated the accused 1 to 3 to carry out the attack.

After bestowing my anxious consideration to the facts, rival submission made across the Bar, the materials placed on record, especially taking note of the fact that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 22.2.2023, that the investigation, so far as it relates to the petitioner, is practically complete, that the recovery has been effected and further that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents, I am of the view that the petitioner’s continued 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.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand 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 for a period of one month or till the final report is laid, whichever is earlier. 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) The petitioner shall furnish his present address and permanent address, and his mobile phone number to the court below and the Investigating Officer;

(vi) 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.

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

(viii) 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].