Renjith S.S.@ Kuttappayi vs State Of Kerala

C.S.Dias, J

The application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the second accused in Crime No.2244/2023 of Kundara Police Station, Kollam, registered against the accused (two in number), for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 452, 294(b), 506, 323, 324, 307 & 308 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The petitioner was arrested on 18.01.2024.

The crux of the prosecution case is that; the accused in furtherance of their common intention, on 23.11.2023, at around 10.30 p.m., caused bodily injury to the informant with an intention to cause his death. The accused trespassed into the informant’s house and abused him. The second accused hit the informant on his head with an iron rod and caused grievous injuries to his head, right ear and right eye. The first accused attacked the informant with a sword and inflicted injuries on his head. Thus, the accused have committed the above offence.

Heard Sri. K. Vijayan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. C. S. Hrithwik, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusation levelled against him. He has been falsely implicated in the crime. The petitioner has been in judicial custody since 18.01.2024, which is more than a month. The investigation in the crime is practically complete and recovery has been effected. The petitioner’s further detention is not necessary. Hence, the application may be allowed.

The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. Nonetheless, he conceded to the fact that the investigation in the case is complete and the recovery has been effected.

On a consideration of the facts, the materials placed on record, the rival submissions made across the Bar, particularly taking note of the fact that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 18.01.2024, that the investigation in the case is complete and the recovery has been effected, I am of the view that the petitioner’s further detention is unnecessary. Hence, I hold that the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail.

In the result, the application is allowed, by directing the petitioner to 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, which shall be subject to the following conditions:

(i)  The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer on every Saturday between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m for a period of one month or till the final report is laid, whichever is earlier. He shall also appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required;

(ii) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or procure to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any Police Officer or tamper with the evidence in any manner, whatsoever;

(iii) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while he is on bail;

(iv) The petitioner shall surrender his passport, if any, before the court below at the time of execution of the bond. If he has no passport, he shall file an affidavit to the effect before the court below on the date of execution of the bond;

(v) The petitioner shall furnish his present address and permanent address, and his mobile phone number to the court below and the Investigating Officer;

(vi) In case of violation of any of the conditions mentioned above, the jurisdictional court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation of bail, if any filed, and pass orders on the same, in accordance with law.

(vii) Applications for deletion/modification of the bail conditions shall be moved and entertained by the court below.

(viii) Needless to mention, it would be well within the powers of the Investigating Officer to investigate the matter and, if necessary, to effect recoveries on the information, if any, given by the petitioner even while the petitioner is on bail as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Anr. [2020 (1) KHC 663].