High CourtsSingle Bench

Jose Tension vs State Of Kerala

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 3 June 2021 · Citation: (2021) 06 KL CK 0065

HON’BLE JUDGES
Raja Vijayaraghavan V, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 438 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 34, 294(b), 323, 324, 354, 447
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Bail Appl. No. 3811 Of 2021
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

27 paragraphs · 508 words

Raja Vijayaraghavan V, J

1.

The above captioned application seeking anticipatory bail has been filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“Code†for

short) by accused nos.1 to 3 in Crime No.605 of 2021 of the Kundara Police Station registered under Sections 447, 294 (b), 323, 324, 354 and 34 of

IPC.

2.

The prosecution allegation is that on 16.04.2021 at about 1.00 p.m., the 1st accused drove a car into the courtyard of the house of the de facto

complainant and when the same was questioned, she and her family members were attacked.

3.

Learned counsel appearing for the applicants submitted that the applicants are innocent of all allegations. The learned counsel would refer to

Annexure-2 FIR in Crime No.321 of 2021 registered on 28.02.2021 at the instance of the 3rd petitioner herein against the de facto complainant in

Crime No.605 of 2021 and it is argued that the registration of the instant crime is as a counter blast to the registration of the earlier crime. It is further

submitted that no incident of the nature alleged had taken place on 16.01.2021. He would further contend that no serious injuries were sustained by the

victim.

4.

The learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer.

5.

I have considered the submissions and have carefully evaluated the records. It appears that at the instance of the 3rd petitioner herein an earlier

crime was registered. It does not appear from the records that any serious injuries were sustained by the injured. The contention of the petitioners that

the aforesaid crime is merely a counter blast of the earlier crime cannot be brushed aside. The applicants are not reported to be persons with criminal

antecedents. Having considered the facts and circumstances, I am of the view that the custodial interrogation of the applicants is not necessary for an

effective investigation in the instant case.

In the result, this application will stand allowed. The applicants shall appear before the Investigating Officer within ten days from today and shall

undergo interrogation. Thereafter, if they are proposed to be arrested, they shall be released on bail on each of them executing a bond for a sum of

Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum. The above order shall be subject to the following conditions:

i) The applicants shall cooperate with the investigation and shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Saturdays between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m., for two months

or till final report is filed, whichever is earlier.

ii) They shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/ her from

disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer.

iii) They shall not commit any similar offence while on bail.

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.