Midhun vs State Of Kerala

M.R.Anitha, J

The petitioners are the sole accused in Crime No.1042/2021 of Kodungalloor Police Station, registered alleging the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 452, 506(ii) and 308 of IPC.

The prosecution case is that, in connection with the football match there was enmity between the defacto complainant and the accused persons. Out of that enmity accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and in furtherance of the common object of the assembly they rioted with deadly weapons and trespassed into the house of the defacto complainant on 13.8.2021, and 1st accused caught hold of the neck and pressed on the genitals of the son of the defacto complainant. When the defacto complainant tried to prevent the accused, first accused voluntarily assaulted her. Nephew of the defacto complainant, Vaishakh was also hit with iron rod on his head. Thereby accused persons committed the offence aforementioned.

The learned Public Prosecutor produced the copy of the FIR and FIS and also the wound certificate of the defacto complainant and also Vaishakh. Wound certificate produced would show that immediately after the incident, they have been examined by the doctor with the alleged history of the assault.

The learned Public Prosecutor also would contend that out of the attack, some serious injuries have been sustained to Vaishakh. No external is noted in the wound certificate. Complaint of difficulty in neck movement and decreased strength of left hand is also noted. But he has been treated only as O.P. So also the dispute arose in connection with the football match and the petitioners were arrested on 14.8.2021 and thereafter they have been under confinement.

Learned Public Prosecutor also would contend that against A5, Crime No.148/17 is also pending. Admittedly, in that crime all are bailable offences and none of the other petitioners have any criminal antecedents also.

Considering the facts and circumstances, I don't think that continuance of the confinement of petitioners is necessary. Hence, I am of the view that the bail application filed by the petitioners can be considered on the following stringent conditions:

(i) The petitioners shall be released on bail on his executing bond for a sum of Rs.30,000/- each (Rupees Seventy Five Thousand Only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the court having jurisdiction.

(ii) The petitioners shall appear before the SHO concerned for interrogation on once in a week between 9.00 a.m and 10.00 a.m for a period of three months from the date of their release or till the final report is filed, whichever is earlier.

(iii) The petitioners 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 from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

(iv) The petitioners shall not commit any offence while on bail.

In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the learned Magistrate is empowered to cancel the bail in accordance with the law.