High CourtsSingle Bench

Jithin Raj.V.R vs State Of Kerala

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 15 March 2018 · Citation: (2018) 03 KL CK 0162

HON’BLE JUDGES
R. Narayana Pisharadi, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 438 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 143, 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 341
CASE NUMBER
Bail Application No. 1273 Of 2018
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

11 paragraphs · 457 words
1.

This is an application for anticipatory bail filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2.

The petitioners are accused Nos.1, 3, 5 and 4 respectively in the case registered as Crime No.131/2018 of Ottappalam police station under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324 and 308 read with 149 of I.P.C.

3.

The prosecution case is that on 12.2.2018, at about 18.00 hours, at a public place, the accused together attacked the de facto complainant with deadly weapons and made attempt to commit culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

4.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the case diary.

5.

On a perusal of the first information statement given to the police by the de facto complainant, it is seen that the first petitioner, who is the first accused in the case, had allegedly beaten him with an iron rod aiming the blow on the head. Considering the nature of the overt act allegedly committed by the first petitioner and his role in the alleged incident, I find that the discretion of the court cannot be exercised in his favour to grant him pre-arrest bail.

6.

However, the case against the other petitioners stands on a different footing. Though there is allegation that they used a stone and a stick to hit and beat the de facto complainant, there is no allegation that injury was caused to the de facto complainant by them on any vital part of the body. Custodial interrogation of these petitioners appears to be not necessary to have an effective investigation in the case. Considering these aspects, I find that the discretion of the court can be exercised in favour of petitioners 2 to 4 to grant them the privilege of pre-arrest bail.

In the result, the prayer for granting anticipatory bail to the first petitioner is rejected. The prayer for granting anticipatory bail to other petitioners is allowed and it is ordered as follows:

1) Petitioners 2 to 4 shall be released on bail on executing a bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand only) each with two sureties each for the like amount in the event of their arrest by the police in Crime No. 131 of 2018 of Ottappalam Police Station.

2) Petitioners 2 to 4 shall appear before the investigating officer between 9 a.m and 11 a.m on all Saturdays for a period of three months from the date of their release on bail.

3) Petitioners 2 to 4 shall not in any manner influence or intimidate the de facto complainant or other prosecution witnesses in the case.

4) Petitioners 2 to 4 shall appear before the investigating officer as and when directed in writing to do so.