High CourtsSingle Bench

Palani vs State Of Kerala

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 16 September 2021 · Citation: (2021) 09 KL CK 0129

HON’BLE JUDGES
Shircy V, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 439 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 294(b), 307, 326
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Bail Appl. No. 6710 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

16 paragraphs · 533 words

Shircy V, J

1.

The petitioner is the accused in Crime No. 595 of 2021 of Munnar Police Station, Idukki District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 326 and 307 of Indian Penal Code. He has moved this application for his release on bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2.

The prosecution allegation is as follows:

This petitioner, the defacto complainant and one Raja are workers in a tea estate at Munnar. All of them were residing in the quarters attached to the company. On 05.07.2021 at about 8.30 p.m., the defacto complainant has found this petitioner quarrelling with Raja. Then he intervened. Infuriated by the same, the petitioner had attacked him with a chopper and hacked on his neck, causing grievous injuries, and his ear lobe was severed in the attack by the petitioner. He was rushed to the hospital and thus his life was saved.

3.

The petitioner is in custody since 06.07.2021.

4.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well the learned Public Prosecutor.

5.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Actually, he has been falsely implicated in the case at the instance of Raja who is on inimical terms with him. Now the defacto complainant has been discharged from the Hospital and he is attending his regular works and hence, this application.

6.

The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the investigation of the case is over and charge sheet has been filed against his petitioner.

7.

This petitioner is a man aged 54 years. The prosecution has no case that he is having any criminal antecedents. Now the investigation of the case is over. Though the defacto complainant has sustained grievous injuries, it is admitted that he has been discharged from Hospital and he is attending his regular work.  This petitioner, the defacto complainant and Raja are employees of a tea estate and residing in the same Lane building. As  the  investigation  of  the  case  is  over  and  the petitioner is having no criminal antecedents as reported by the learned Public Prosecutor, I think that his request to release him on bail can be considered favourably imposing some stringent conditions.

Therefore, this application is allowed subject to the following conditions:

(i) The petitioner shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the court having jurisdiction.

(ii) The petitioner shall co-operate with the trial of the case.

(iii) The petitioner shall not enter into the quarters of the defacto complainant or the quarters of Raja, his collegue.

(iv) The petitioner 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 tamper with the evidence.

(v) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail.

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