High CourtsSingle Bench

Mohammed Kausar vs State Of Kerala

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 4 December 2021 · Citation: (2021) 12 KL CK 0035

HON’BLE JUDGES
P.G. Ajithkumar, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Criminal Procedure Code 1973 — Section 438 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 34, 143, 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 326, 341
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Bail Appl. No. 6084 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

12 paragraphs · 440 words

P.G. Ajithkumar, J.

1.

This is an application for anticipatory bail filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

2.

The petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.357 of 2021 of Kumbla Police Station, Kasaragode for having allegedly committed the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324 and 326 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the offences were changed to Sections 341, 323, 324 and 326 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. and the petitioners alone are the accused now.

3.

The allegations are that the petitioners in furtherance of their common intention, attacked and inflicted injuries to the de facto complainant. In the incident, the de facto complainant sustained fracture of ribs, besides other injuries.

4.

The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that initially, when the case was investigated by Manjeswaram Police, the petitioners appeared before the investigating officer. At that time, their statements were recorded, but no arrest was made. Thereafter, the crime was transferred to Kumbla Police Station on the question of territorial jurisdiction. Only at that time, it was revealed that the de facto complainant-injured sustained grievous hurt, resulting in addition of an offence punishable under Section 326 of the I.P.C.

5.

The learned Public Prosecutor would submit that considering the nature of the offences alleged, custodial interrogation is required to complete the investigation in a proper manner.

6.

Having considered the matter in detail, especially the fact that the incident had occurred as early as on 14.06.2021 and there was no attempt yet to arrest the petitioners, I am of the view that detention of the petitioners during investigation may not be required. Therefore, I find that the petitioners are entitled to a pre-arrest bail.

7.

The petitioners are therefore directed to appear before the Investigating Officer within two weeks and in the event of their being arrested, they shall be released on bail on execution of a bond for Rs.50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand only) by them along with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer, and on the following conditions:

(i) They shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called for;

(ii) They shall not influence or intimidate witnesses or tamper with evidence; and

(iii) During the bail period, they shall not get involved in any offence.

In case of breach of the bail conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to apply for cancellation of the bail before the  jurisdictional  court.  With  these  observations,  the  Bail Application is disposed of.