Jibin Joseph @ Muthu vs State Of Kerala

P.G. Ajithkumar, J

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

The petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.777 of 2023 of Rajakkad Police Station. He allegedly had committed the offences punishable under Sections 201, 294(b), 307, 323 and 325 of IPC.

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

The prosecution allegation is that due to the previous enmity to the son of the defacto complainant, at about 09.30 pm on 11.09.2023 the petitioner, who is the sole accused, abused the defacto complainant uttering obscene words and attacked the son of the defacto complainant using a chopper. He sustained fatal injuries. When the defacto complainant intervened, the petitioner pushed him down causing him injuries including dislocation of his right elbow.

The petitioner would contend that he did not involve in the alleged crime and without any material or evidence, he has been implicated in the crime. He is innocent. The investigation in the matter has been progressed considerably and there is no reason or justification for his further detention.

It is seen from the records that there have been conflicts between the defacto complainant and the petitioner. They are neighbours and there exist disputes between them and as a sequel to such disputes, the incident had occurred. The learned Public Prosecutor would submit that the petitioner had involved in two other crimes namely; Crime No.831 of 2021 and Crime No.333 of 2023 of the same police station. The offences involved in the said crimes are also attacking and inflicting injuries to others. The learned public prosecutor on the said ground is seeking to dismiss the petition.

The Sub Inspector of Police, Rajakkad Police Station has submitted a report, through the learned Public Prosecutor, objecting the grant of bail to the petitioner.

The petitioner has been in custody since 28.11.2023. It is seen that major part of the investigation is already over. No doubt, the gravity of the offence is serious in nature. However, it is necessary to maintain the comity between the petitioner and the defacto complainant who are neighbours. Considering all such aspects, I am of the view that the further detention of the petitioner is unnecessary. I am therefore of the view that the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail subject to strict conidtions.

In the result, the bail application is allowed and the petitioner is granted bail on his executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only), with two solvent sureties for the like amount each, to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate, subject to the following conditions:

(i) He shall not influence or intimidate witnesses or tamper with evidence;

(ii) He shall appear before the investigating officer as and when called for; and

(iii) During the bail period, he shall not get involved in any offence.

(iv) The petitioner shall not try to contact the defacto complainant or any members of his family during the period of investigation, trial, if any.

(v) The petitioner shall surrender his passport before the jurisdictional court and if he does not have a passport, he shall file an affidavit to that effect.

In case of breach of the bail conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to apply for cancellation of the bail before the jurisdictional court.