High CourtsSingle Bench

Renjith, S/o Vasudevan Pillai vs State Of Kerala

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 6 June 2022 · Citation: (2022) 06 KL CK 0048

HON’BLE JUDGES
Viju Abraham, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 294(b), 323, 325, 333, 353
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Bail Application No. 3898 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

13 paragraphs · 462 words

Viju Abraham, J

1.

This is an application for regular bail.

2.

Petitioner is the accused in the Crime No.654 of 2022 of Kunnicode Police Station registered alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 323, 325, 333 and 353 of the Indian Penal Code.

3.

Prosecution case is that with an intent to obstruct the duty of the defacto complainant and to cause grievious hurt to him, on 09.05.2022 at 00.25 a.m. when the defacto complainant was on patrolling duty and reached Pattazhy, Earath West at 00.50 hours, after getting information that the person named Anil Kumar sustained injury, the accused was seen in an uncontrollable state and when the defacto complainant tried to take him in the police jeep, the accused abused him and stamped on his face with his right leg and pushed him down. When SCPO 7152 tried to help the defacto complainant to get up from the floor, the accused assaulted on various parts of his body. The accused also twisted the right hand fingers of the defacto complainant causing injury and thereby obstructed the defacto complainant and SCPO 7152 from discharging their official duty. Due to the stamp on the face, the defacto complainant sustained nasal bone fracture.

4.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

5.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the above crime. It is also submitted that the petitioner was arrested on 09.05.2022 and is in judicial custody since then and that he has no other criminal antecedents.

6.

The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application mainly contending that the attack was on a police personnel who was discharging his official duty.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, considering the nature of the allegations and taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner is in custody from 09.05.2022 onwards and that he has no other criminal antecedents, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner on the following conditions:

(i) The petitioner shall execute 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) He shall appear before the investigating officer in Crime No.654 of 2022 of Kunnicode Police Station on every Saturday at 11 am, until filing of final report.

(iii) He shall not attempt to interfere with the investigation or to influence any witness in Crime No.654 of 2022 of Kunnicode Police Station.

(v) He shall not involve in any other crime while on bail.

If any of the aforesaid conditions are violated, the investigating officer in Crime No.654 of 2022 of Kunnicode Police Station may file an application before the jurisdictional court, for cancellation of bail.