Muhammed vs State Of Kerala

C.S.Dias, J

The application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the accused 1 and 2 in crime No.75/2024 of the Varandarappilly Police Station, Thrissur, registered against them , for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Secs.341, 324 and 307 read with Sec.34 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioners were arrested on 5.2.2024.

The crux of the prosecution case is that: on 3.2.2024 at around 23.00 hours, the accused in furtherance of their common intention, threw granite stones at the de facto complainant and his friend Refeek and the first accused stabbed the de facto complainant on his back twice with a knife and his friend on his back below the shoulder with the same knife. Then, the second accused hit the friend of the de facto complainant on his left hand by using a sword. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences.

Heard; Sri.Nireesh Mathew, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri.C.S Hrithwik, the learned Public Prosecutor and Sri.Athul Poulose, the learned counsel apeparing for the respondents 2 and 3/injured.

The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are totally innocent of the accusations levelled against them. They have been falsely implicated in the crime. The Investigating Officer has deliberately incorporated Sec.307 of the IPC without any substance or basis with a sole intention to deny bail to the petitioners. Notwithstanding the other contentions raised in the application, the subject-matter in dispute between the petitioners and the respondents 2 and 3/injured has been amicably settled out of Court and the respondents have stated that they have no objection in the petitioners being enlarged on bail. Moreover, the petitioners have been in judicial custody since 5.2.2024. The investigation in the case is practically complete and recovery has been effected. Hence, the petitioners may be released on bail.

The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. He submitted that the investigation in the case is in progress. The petitioners have caused grievous injuries to the injured. Nonetheless, he conceded to the fact that the petitioners have been in judicial custody since 5.2.2024 and that recovery has been effected.

The learned counsel for the respondents 2 and 3 also submitted that the said respondents have no objection in the petitioners being enlarged on bail because the dispute between the parties has been settled. They propose to take appropriate steps to get the proceedings quashed.

After bestowing my anxious consideration to the facts, rival submissions made across the Bar, the materials placed on record, especially taking into account the fact that the petitioners have been in judicial custody since 5.2.2023, that the investigation in the case is practically complete, that the recovery has been effected and further that the petitioners and the respondents 2 and 3 have arrived at a genuine settlement,  which would augur harmony in the society, I am of the view that the petitioners’ continued detention is unnecessary. Hence, I am inclined to allow the bail application.

In the result, the application is allowed, by directing the petitioners to be released on bail on them executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum, to the satisfaction of the court having jurisdiction, which shall be subject to the following conditions:

(i) The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer on every Saturday between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m for a period of one month or till the final report is laid, whichever is earlier. They shall also appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required;

(ii) The petitioners shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or procure to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the court or to any Police Officer or tamper with the evidence in any manner, whatsoever;

(iii) The petitioners shall not commit any offence while they are on bail;

(iv) The petitioners shall surrender their passports, if any, before the court below at the time of execution of the bond. If they have no passports, they shall file affidavits to the effect before the court below on the date of execution of the bond;

(v) The petitioners shall furnish their present address and permanent address, and their mobile phone number to the court below and the Investigating Officer;

(vi) In case of violation of any of the conditions mentioned above, the jurisdictional court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation of bail, if any filed, and pass orders on the same, in accordance with law.

(vii) Applications for deletion/modification of the bail conditions shall be moved and entertained by the court below.

(viii) Needless to mention, it would be well within the powers of the Investigating Officer to investigate the matter and, if necessary, to effect recoveries on the information, if any, given by the petitioners even while the petitioners are on bail as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another [2020 (1) KHC 663].