High CourtsSingle Bench

Jino Varghese vs State Of Kerala

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 29 May 2023 · Citation: (2023) 05 KL CK 0224

HON’BLE JUDGES
Bechu Kurian Thomas, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 439 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 34, 308, 323, 324, 341
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Bail Application No. 4032 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 · 461 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.

Petitioners are accused Nos. 1 and 2 in Crime No.373/2023 of Angamaly Police Station, alleging offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324 and 308 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code 1860.

3.

According to the prosecution, on 07.05.2023 at around 10.30 p.m, the accused had, in furtherance of their common intention, assaulted the defacto complainant with an iron pipe and hit him on the head and thereby inflicted a deep injury on the left ear as well as his forehead and thereby committed the offences alleged.

4.

Sri. Sanil Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioners, contended that the prosecution allegations are false and the incident as alleged had not occurred. It was further submitted that petitioners were arrested on 08.05.2023 and that they have been in custody since then. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that, no purpose would be achieved by continuing the detention, since the interrogation of the petitioners have already been completed.

5.

Sri. P.G.Manu, the learned Public Prosecutor, opposed the application and submitted that the allegations against the petitioners are serious, and that if the petitioners are released on bail, there is every chance of them committing further offences. It was further submitted that, even though there are no antecedents against the petitioners, the nature of injuries inflicted on the defacto complainant, must compel this Court to deny the bail application.

6.

I have considered the rival contentions.

7.

Petitioners are alleged to have inflicted an incised injury on the left ear of the defacto complainant. Even though the allegations are serious, having regard to the fact that there are no antecedents against the petitioners and also since they are undergoing detention from 08.05.2023, I am of the view that further detention would not serve any purpose.

Accordingly, I allow this application on the following conditions:-

a) Petitioners shall be released on bail on them executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) each

with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Judicial First Class M+agistrate Court, Angamaly.

b) Petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required.

c) Petitioners shall not commit any similar offences while they are on bail.

d) Petitioners shall not leave the country until conclusion of trial.

e) Petitioners shall not intimidate or attempt to contact the defacto complainant or the witnesses.

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.