High CourtsSingle Bench

Sabareesan@Sabari vs State Of Kerala

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 11 February 2022 · Citation: (2022) 02 KL CK 0113

HON’BLE JUDGES
Gopinath P, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 34, 308, 323, 324, 506(i) · Arms Act, 1959 — Section 27
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Bail Application No. 660 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

28 paragraphs · 535 words

Gopinath P., J

1.

The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.1864/2021 of Maranalloor Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram District alleging commission of offences

under Sections 323, 324, 506(i), 308 & 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of Arms Act.

2.

The allegation against the petitioner is that he trespassed into the property of the de facto complainant, on 10-10-2021 at about 8 p.m and assaulted

the de facto complainant and his friend Rohit, who had tried to prevent the attack. The 2nd accused is alleged to have used a knife and the 1st

accused is alleged to have used a sword with an attempt to kill the de facto complainant. It is alleged that the 1st accused, using the sword, had

inflicted an injury on the backside of the left ear of the de facto complainant.

3.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the de facto complainant's brother had attacked the mother of the

petitioner. It is submitted that the mother of the petitioner is an elected member of the Maranalloor Panchayat and the attack by the brother of the de

facto complainant was solely on account of political reasons. It is submitted that, following a private complaint, Crime No.1895/2021 has been

registered against the brother of the de facto complainant. It is submitted that filing of the complaint, which led to registration of Crime No.1864/2021

is nothing but a counter blast. It is also submitted that the petitioner had no criminal antecedents. Lastly, it is submitted that the petitioner has been in

custody from 20-01-2022 and further detention is not required for the purposes of any investigation.

4.

The learned Public Prosecutor points out the circumstances of the case and also refers the order passed by this court in B.A. No.8935/2021 to

contend that the circumstances against the petitioner herein compelled this court to refuse anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the petitioner can be granted bail as his continued detention may

not be necessary for the purposes of any investigation. However, since the investigation is ongoing he can be directed to appear before the

Investigating officer on every Monday and Saturday at 11 a.m until filing of final report.

In the result this bail application is allowed. It is directed that the petitioner shall be released on bail, subject to the following conditions:-

(i) The petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of 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 report before the Investigating officer in Crime No.1864/2021 of Maranalloor Police Station on every Monday and Saturday at 11 a.m until filing

of final report;

(iii) The petitioner shall not interfere with the investigation, influence or intimidate the de facto complainant or any witness in Crime No.1864/2021 of Maranalloor

Police Station;

(iv) The petitioner shall not involve in any other crime while on bail.

If any of the aforesaid conditions are violated, the Investigating officer in Crime No.1864/2021 of Maranalloor Police Station may file an application

before the jurisdictional Court for cancellation of bail.