Rakesh vs State Of Kerala

Bechu Kurian Thomas, J

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

Petitioner is the 1st accused in Crime No.835/2022 of Vilappilsala Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram District. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under sections 450, 294(b), 506, 324, 307 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 1860.

According to the prosecution, on 05.09.2022, the accused on being provoked by the withdrawal of the defacto complainant from an agreement for sale entered into between the 1st accused and the defacto complainant along with his wife, the accused tresspassed into the house of the defacto complainant and the 2nd accused stabbed the defacto complainant’s wife multiple times causing injuries and thus the accused together committed the offences alleged.

Sri.Girish Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the entire prosecution allegations are false and that petitioner has been roped in as an accused without any basis. It was also submitted that though petitioner is arrayed as the 1st accused, no overt act has been alleged against him, and on the contrary, the entire overt acts have been alleged only against the 2nd accused. It was further submitted that the petitioner has been arrayed as an accused only because the agreement for sale was entered into with the victim and having regard to the period of detention already undergone from 06.09.2022, petitioner ought to be released on bail.

Smt.M.K.Pushpalatha, learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand opposed the grant of bail and contended that the injuries inflicted on the defacto complainant and his wife are very serious and that even though petitioner is not alleged to have done any overt act by virtue of Section 34 of IPC, has committed the offences. It was also submitted that if the petitioner is released on bail, there is every chance that he may influence the witnesses, especially since the investigation is ongoing.

I have considered the rival contentions and also perused the statement of the defacto complainant.

It is noticed that prima facie the specific overt act has been alleged against the petitioner, while all overt acts are alleged against the 2nd accused. Further, since the petitioner has been in custody from 06.09.2022, considering the nature of allegations as against the petitioner, I am of the view that the continued detention is not essential.

In the result, this application is allowed on the following conditions:-

(a) Petitioner shall be released on bail on him executing 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 defacto complainant or her family members.

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

(f) 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.