High CourtsSingle Bench

Sajith T.C. @ Monu vs Bar Council Of Kerala

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 16 July 2021 · Citation: (2021) 07 KL CK 0208

HON’BLE JUDGES
K.Haripal, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 438 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 143, 147, 148, 149, 294(b), 323, 324, 326, 341
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Bail Appl. No. 5218 Of 2021
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

20 paragraphs · 360 words

K.Haripal, J

1.

Petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 4 in crime No.791/2021 of Vattapara police station which was registered alleging offence under Sections 143, 147,

148, 341, 294(b), 323, 324 and 326 read with Section 149 IPC. The alleged incident had happened on 01.06.2021 and the crime was registered on

02.06.2021. Now petitioners are before Court, seeking anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.

2.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor.

3.

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that on the very same date and time, crime No.1294/2021 has been registered against the defacto

complainant alleging offence under Sections 294(b) and 324 IPC, for having attacked and injured the second petitioner who is the second accused in

crime No.791/2021.

4.

The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the allegation is that five accused persons, including the petitioners, had attacked and injured the defacto

complainant. The first accused had used a stick and the second accused had used an iron rod in which attack the defacto complainant suffered a

fracture on his right elbow. Whatever it may be, now the weapons of offence have already been recovered under a mahazar. Similarly, on the basis of

the orders of the Sessions Court, the second petitioner had already surrendered before the Investigating Officer and made himself available for

interrogation. That means, further interrogation is not warranted.

5.

On these considerations and also taking into account the fact that the petitioners do not bear any criminal antecedents, I am inclined to allow this

application.

In the result, the petitioners shall be at liberty to surrender before the investigating officer within ten days from today and will make themselves

available for interrogation; in the event of arrest, they shall be released on bail on executing bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) each,

with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the investigating officer; they shall co-operate with the investigation, shall not try

to contact or influence the witnesses or tamper with the evidence and shall not involve in any crime during the period on bail.

This bail application is allowed as above..