High CourtsSingle Bench

Roji Augustine vs State Of Kerala

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 16 January 2023 · Citation: (2023) 01 KL CK 0141

HON’BLE JUDGES
Bechu Kurian Thomas, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 438 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 34, 294(b), 323, 354, 506
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Bail Application No. 84 Of 2023
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 · 505 words

Bechu Kurian Thomas, J

1.

This is an application seeking pre-arrest bail filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

2.

Petitioners are the accused in Crime No.956/2022 of Meenangadi Police Station, Wayanad, alleging offences punishable under Sections 323, 354, 294(b) and 506 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

3.

According to the prosecution, on 25.12.2022, when the defacto complainant parked her car in front of the house of the accused, they assaulted the defacto complainant and abused her and also threatened to kill her and thereby committed the offences alleged.

4.

Sri.M.P.Ashok Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the entire prosecution allegations are false and the incident as alleged had not occurred. It was further submitted that the petitioners had only requested the defacto complainant to remove the car parked in front of the house of the accused and the defacto complainant became agitated and trespassed into the house of the accused and smashed the window panes. It was further submitted that petitioners are willing to abide by any conditions that may be imposed. It was also submitted that there is a counter case filed against the defacto complainant as FIR No.958/2022 of the same Police Station.

5.

Sri.Noushad K.A., the learned Public Prosecutor opposed the grant of bail and contended that the allegations are serious requiring custodial interrogation. It was further submitted that the first petitioner is a hardened criminal as he is involved in 15 criminal cases, and that the 3rd accused is yet to be identified and therefore, releasing the petitioner on bail, at this juncture would cause prejudice to the investigation.

6.

I have considered the rival contentions and have also perused the statement of the victim. Having regard to the incident alleged as well as the circumstances surrounding it, I am of the view that limited custody of the petitioners would suffice the investigation.

7.

Accordingly, I allow this application on the following conditions :-

(a) Petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer on 23.01.2023 and shall subject themselves to interrogation.

(b) If after interrogation, the Investigating Officer proposes to arrest the petitioners, then, they shall be released on bail on them executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum before the Investigating Officer.

(c) Petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required and shall also co-operate with the investigation.

(d) Petitioners shall not intimidate or attempt to influence the witnesses; nor shall they tamper with the evidence or contact the defacto complainant or her family members.

(e) Petitioners shall not commit any similar offences while they are on bail.

(f) Petitioners 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.