Mohammed Fasalu vs State Of Kerala

P. Krishna Kumar , J

This Bail Application is filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).

Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.572 of 2024 of Chombala Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offence punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 296(b), 351(2) and 110 of BNSS.

The prosecution case is that on 12.11.2024 at 6 p.m., the petitioner attacked the de-facto complainant with his fist and a steel bangle and thereby caused injury to his chin and consequently committed the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 296(b), 351(2) and 110 of BNSS.

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

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The counsel further submitted that no materials are on record to connect the petitioner with the alleged crime; hence he is entitled to get bail. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the alleged incident occurred as a part of the intentional criminal acts of the petitioner, and he is not entitled to bail at this stage, particularly when recovery is to be effected.

From the submission of both sides, it appears that the investigation of the case is now in an advanced stage. The prosecution records do not show that the petitioner has any criminal antecedents. At present, there are no reasons to hold that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is unavoidable for the further progress of the investigation. It is alleged that the petitioner attacked the de-facto complainant on his head with a steel bangle. However, when the wound certificate is perused, there is no injury on his head and there was only a small abrasion on the chin. The anxiety expressed by the learned Public Prosecutor that the accused would interfere with the process of investigation if released on bail and that for recovery of the steel bangle is not effected, can be addressed by imposing suitable conditions. Having considered the nature of allegations against the petitioner and the present stage of the investigation, it is only just and proper to release the petitioner on bail, in the event of his arrest.

In the result, the application is allowed on the following conditions:

(i) In the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be released on bail on execution a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the investigating officer.

(ii) The petitioner shall fully co-operate with the investigation.

(iii) The petitioner shall appear before the investigation officer as and when a notice in writing is issued in this regard by the investigating officer. If recovery is effected during the course of police interrogation of the petitioner, it shall be deemed to be a discovery for the purpose of Section 27 of the Evidence Act, as it was held in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab [1980 AIR SC 1632].

(iv) The petitioner shall not commit any offence of a like nature while on bail.

(v) The petitioner shall not interact with the prosecution witnesses, directly or through any other person, or in any other way influence any witnesses or other persons related to the investigation and he shall not tamper with the evidence.

(vi) The petitioner shall not leave Kerala without the permission of the trial court.

(vii) The application, if any, for detention/modification of the bail conditions or cancellation of bail on the ground of violating the bail conditions can  be  entertained  by  the  jurisdictional court, if it is found necessary.