Saithalavi vs State Of Kerala

C.S.Dias, J

The application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the sole accused in Crime No.226/2024 of the Areekode Police Station, Malappuram, registered against him, for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Secs. 341, 324 and 308 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was arrested on 18.2.2024.

The essence of the prosecution case is that: on 18.2.2024 at around 8.30 hours, the accused had wrongfully restrained the defacto complainant and voluntarily caused hurt to him by hitting on his head with a torch. Accordingly, the defacto complainant sustained injuries. Thus, the accused has committed the above offences.

Heard; Sri.P.C Muhammed Noushiq, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt.Seetha.S, the learned Public Prosecutor.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusations levelled against him. He has been falsely implicated in the crime. A reading of Annexure A1 remand report would substantiate that the offence under Sec.308 would not be attracted. The said offence has been incorporated only for the purpose of denying bail to the petitioner. In any case, the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 18.2.2024. The investigation in the case is complete and recovery has been effected. Therefore, the petitioner’s further detention is not necessary. Hence, the application may be allowed.

The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. She contended that the investigation in the case is in progress. She also submitted that the treatment record of the injured has not been received. Hence, the application may be dismissed.

On an anxious consideration of the facts, the materials placed on record, the rival submissions made across the Bar, particularly after going through Annexure A1 remand report and also taking into consideration that the wound certificate/treatment records of the injured have not been produced, I am of the definite view that the petitioner’s further detention is unnecessary. Hence, I am inclined to allow the bail application.

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) 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.

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

(vii) 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 another [2020 (1) KHC 663].