High CourtsSingle Bench

Rethnaraj @ Jithu vs State Of Kerala

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 17 May 2024 · Citation: (2024) 05 KL CK 0050

HON’BLE JUDGES
Mohammed Nias C.P, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 439 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 294(b), 308, 324, 341, 420
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Bail Application No. 3895 Of 2024
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

12 paragraphs · 455 words

Mohammed Nias C.P., J

1.

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

2.

The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.486/2024 of Nooranadu Police Station, Alappuzha, for having committed offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 324, 341 & 308 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

3.

The prosecution case is that the de-facto complainant owned a workshop situated near his residence. The accused had expressed his concern to the de facto complainant about voltage fluctuations occurring at his residence during the welding activities at the workshop. Consequently, the accused requested to stop the workshop operations. However, the de facto complainant was reluctant to comply with the request. Due to the enmity towards the de-facto complainant on 16.04.2024, at 8:00 PM, on the road adjacent to the de-facto complainant’s residence, with a common intention, Accused No.1 uttered vulgar language at the de-facto complainant. Subsequently, Accused No.2 wrongfully restrained the de-facto complainant, at that time accused no.1 hit him on the head with an iron rod, with the knowledge of causing death and sustained injuries. The second assault was avoided by the defacto complainant resulting in injury to the front region of his head and thereby committed the aforesaid offences.

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 has been in custody since 19.04.2024, and continued custody of the petitioner is unnecessary.

5.

The learned public prosecutor opposed the petition.

6.

Taking note of the fact that the petitioner was arrested on 19.4.2024, that no other antecedents are reported against the petitioner and that no apprehension is being raised by the prosecution that if released on bail the petitioner is likely to abscond, I am inclined to grant bail under such circumstances. 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 furnish his residential address along with his mobile number to the court concerned as well as to the investigating officer.

(iii) The petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer every Saturday between 9 a.m. and 10 a.m. till the final report is laid;

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

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