High CourtsSingle Bench

Rajkumar vs State Of Kerala

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 8 November 2022 · Citation: (2022) 11 KL CK 0077

HON’BLE JUDGES
Bechu Kurian Thomas, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 439 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 308, 323, 324, 341, 354 · Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2015 — Section 75 · Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 — Section 31(1)
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Bail Application No. 8624 Of 2022
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

15 paragraphs · 484 words

Bechu Kurian Thomas, J

1.

This is an application for regular bail filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

2.

Petitioner  is  the  accused  in  Crime  No.509/2022  of Chalissery Police Station, alleging offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 308 and 354 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 r/w Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2015 and Section 31(1) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

3.

According to the prosecution, on 15.10.2022, the accused who is the brother-in-law of the defacto complainant restrained her and her children from entering into her house and also outraged her modesty by pushing her down and tried to inflict a stab on her stomach and chest with a knife, which was prevented using a bag and in the attack, defacto complainant and one of her daughter’s sustained injuries and thereby committed the offences alleged.

4.

Sri.P.K.Mohanan, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the entire allegations are false and the petitioner is totally innocent. It was also submitted that the allegations are the result of a marital dispute pending between the defacto complainant and her husband, who is none other than the brother of the petitioner. It was also submitted that petitioner is willing to abide any condition that may be imposed upon him.

5.

Sri.Noushad.K.A, the learned Public Prosecutor, opposed the grant of bail and contended that the allegations are serious requiring custodial interrogation, and also that if petitioner is released on bail there is every chance of him threatening the defacto complainant and other witness.

6.

I have considered the rival contentions and also gone through the exhibits produced.

7.

Petitioner and defacto complainant are closely related to each other. Though the allegations are serious in nature having regard to the period of detention already undergone, that is from 18.10.2022 onwards, I am of the view that further detention is not essential.

8.

Accordingly, I allow this application and direct the petitioner is to be released on bail on the following conditions.

a) Petitioner shall be released on bail on him 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.

b) Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required.

c) Petitioner shall not intimidate or attempt to influence the witnesses; nor shall he tamper with the evidence or contact the victim or his/her family members.

d) Petitioner shall not commit any similar offences while he is on bail.

e) Petitioner shall not leave India without the permission of the Court having jurisdiction.

In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the jurisdictional Court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation, if any, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law, notwithstanding the bail having been granted by this Court.