High CourtsSingle Bench

Kannan vs State Of Kerala

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 8 December 2020 · Citation: (2020) 12 KL CK 0124

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ashok Menon, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 307, 324, 326, 341, 506
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Bail Application No. 7952 Of 2020
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

26 paragraphs · 530 words
1.

The applicant is the sole accused in Crime No.1133/2020 of Mala Police Station, Thrissur, for having allegedly committed offences punishable under

Sections 341, 324, 326, 307 and 506 of the IPC.

2.

The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 05.10.2020 at about 8 a.m, out of previous enmity towards the de facto complainant who is the neighbour

of the applicant and also involved in property dispute, dashed his car against the de facto complainant who was travelling on a motorbike and after he

fell down on the road, the applicant allegedly attacked him with sword and caused grievous hurt to him. There was an injury which appeared in the

lungs of the de facto complainant. The de facto complainant thereafter was taken into hospital and crime was registered against the applicant.

3.

He was arrested on 05.10.2020 and has been in judicial custody since then. The recovery is already over and custodial interrogation for other

purposes is not required. The applicant admittedly has no criminal antecedents. Therefore, he seeks bail.

4.

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

5.

The learned Public Prosecutor submits that very grave injuries were sustained by the de facto complainant. The applicant was not only dashed his

motorbike using a car, when the de facto complainant fell down, he was also attacked with a sword and injuries were caused could have proved fatal

and thus the applicant attempted to commit murder. Considering the gravity of the injuries sustained by the de facto complainant, the applicant may not

be released on bail, because there is every possibility that if he is released on bail, he may intimidate the de facto complainant, since they are

neighbours.

6.

After having heard the submissions made on both sides, I find that the applicant is a person having criminal antecedents. It is true that the applicant

and the de facto complainant had some dispute between them and that is the reason why it led to the present act of assault and attempted murder.

However, the applicant has been incarcerated and the recovery is already completed. Therefore, no purpose will be served by further incarceration.

To prevent him from causing any threat to the de facto complainant, conditions can be imposed.

7.

In the result, the bail application is allowed and the applicant is directed to be released on bail on execution of bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty

thousand only) with two solvent sureties for the like amount each to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court and on the following conditions;

(1) He shall appear before the investigating officer on all Saturdays between 9 a.m and 12 noon for a period of three months or till filing of the final

report whichever is earlier.

(2) He shall not enter the police station for a period of two months except to comply with condition No.1.

(3) He shall not attempt to influence or intimidate the witnesses.

(4) He shall not get involved in similar offences during the currency of the bail.

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