High CourtsSingle Bench

P.K.Krishnan @ Kunchu vs State Of Kerala

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 26 October 2023 · Citation: (2023) 10 KL CK 0196

HON’BLE JUDGES
Mohammed Nias C.P., J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 439 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 307, 324, 341
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Bail Application No. 9142 Of 2023
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

13 paragraphs · 467 words

Mohammed Nias C.P., J

1.

This application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking regular bail.

2.

The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.1008 of 2023 of Vadakkancherry Police Station, Palakkad District, for having committed offences punishable under Sections 307, 324 and 341 of IPC.

3.

The prosecution case is that the accused is a person engaged in the avocation of cutting trees. The first informant is also doing similar work. The accused has a belief that the first informant is obstructing the work being allotted to the accused for cutting trees. With that animosity in mind, the accused, on 15.9.2023 at 5:30 hours at a place called Marygiri with an intention to do away with the first informant, using a chopper, tried to cut on the neck of the first informant. Since the first informant just bowed down in order to avoid the assault, the accused could not succeed in cutting the neck. Again, the accused assaulted the first informant with the chopper. The first informant suffered injuries on the back of his left ear and left shoulder. Thereby, the accused attempted to commit murder of the first informant. Hence, the accused is alleged to have committed the offences mentioned above.

4.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would say that the petitioner is totally innocent and falsely implicated with ulterior motives. At any rate, he points out that the petitioner is in custody from 15.9.2023, and continued custody of the petitioner is unnecessary.

5.

The learned public prosecutor opposed the petition and points out that the petitioner is not entitled to get bail.

6.

Taking into account the fact that the alleged injuries caused are only abrasions, the fact that the petitioner has been in custody since 15.9.2023, no other criminal antecedents have been reported against the petitioner, and also since there is no apprehension raised by the prosecution that if he is released on bail, the petitioner is likely to abscond, I hold that bail can be granted to the petitioner.

7.

Accordingly, this application is allowed, and the petitioner is granted bail subject to the following conditions:-

(i) The petitioner shall be released on bail on 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 jurisdictional court;

(ii) The petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer as and when required to do so.

(iii) The petitioner shall not tamper or attempt to tamper with the evidence or influence or try to influence the witnesses.

(iv) The petitioner shall not be involved in any other crime while on bail.

(v) If any of the conditions are violated, the court concerned shall be empowered to take steps for cancellation of bail as per law.