High CourtsSingle Bench

Sajan John vs State Of Kerala

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 12 December 2022 · Citation: (2022) 12 KL CK 0121

HON’BLE JUDGES
Viju Abraham, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 143, 147, 148, 149, 294(b), 308, 324, 341
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Bail Application No. 9746 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

12 paragraphs · 533 words

Viju Abraham, J

1.

This is an application for regular bail.

2.

The petitioners are accused Nos. 1 and 5 in Crime No.845/2022 of Infopark Police Station, Ernakulam, alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 324, 294(b) and 308 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code.

3.

The prosecution allegation is that, the defacto complainant is alleged to be the friend of the owner of hotel ‘Ambiance’ situated at Kakkanad. On 16.11.2022 at about 11.30 p.m., there was an electricity outage in the premises of the Ambiance hotel. Then the people gathered behind the hotel started singing loudly. Immediately the defacto complainant reached the place of occurrence and warned not to sing or make any sound. Then accused Nos.1 and 2 objected the same. When the defacto complainant tried to backtrack from there, the 1st accused slapped on the head of the defacto complainant with a soda bottle causing injury on his right ear. Thereafter the 1st accused flashed the broken soda bottle against the neck of the defacto complainant but he tried to evade the same. At that time accused Nos. 3 to 5 prevented the defacto complainant to evade the attack and so in the occurrence, the defacto complainant sustained injury above the eyebrow and forehead and under the right eye and thus the accused has committed the above said offences.

4.

The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the above said crime and that they are in custody from 17.08.2022 onwards. It is also submitted that the 2nd accused is already granted bail by this Court in B. A. No.9795/2022.

5.

The learned Public Prosecutor seriously opposed the application for bail mainly contending that serious overtacts are alleged against the 1st accused and that the defacto complainant sustained serious injuries in the alleged incident. It is further submitted that the petitioners are not involved in any other crime.

6.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, considering the nature of the allegations and considering the fact that the petitioners are in custody from 17.08.2022 onwards and that they have no other criminal antecedents, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioners subject to stringent conditions. In the result, the bail application is allowed. It is directed that the petitioners shall be released on bail, subject to the following conditions:

(i) The petitioners shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only)each with two solvent sureties each for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court;

(ii) The petitioners shall appear before the investigating officer in Crime No.845/2022 of Infopark Police Station, Ernakulam, on every Saturday at 11 am, until filing of final report;

(iii) The petitioners shall not attempt to interfere with the investigation or to influence or intimidate the defacto complainant or any witness in Crime No.845/2022 of Infopark Police Station, Ernakulam, ;

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

If any of the aforesaid conditions are violated, the investigating officer in Crime No.845/2022 of Infopark Police Station, Ernakulam, may file an application before the jurisdictional court, for cancellation of bail.