High CourtsDivision Bench

Saleesh N vs State Of Kerala

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 16 December 2021 · Citation: (2021) 12 KL CK 0123

HON’BLE JUDGES
C.S.Sudha, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 438 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 308, 324, 341
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Bail Application No. 8180 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

12 paragraphs · 529 words

C.S.Sudha, J

1.

This is an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner/accused in Crime no.686/2021 of Chombala Police Station, Vatakara, Kozhikode District alleging the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 341, 324 and 308 IPC.

2.

The prosecution case is that on 22.09.2021 at 9 p.m., the petitioner/accused with intention of voluntarily causing hurt to the informant, wrongfully restrained him and voluntarily caused injuries to him by stabbing him with a knife. It is also alleged that the assault by the petitioner/accused would have caused the death of the informant had the eye witnesses not intervened. Hence, the accused is alleged to have committed the offences punishable under the above mentioned Sections.

3.

The application is opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor on the ground that grievous injuries have been sustained by the informant in this case and that the investigation is still in progress and that there is every possibility of the petitioner/accused interfering and tampering with the evidence, if he is released on bail.

4.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused that both the petitioner/accused and the injured herein are neighbours and working together in the harbour. It is submitted that on the date of the incident, there was a scuffle between the petitioner/accused and the informant, as a result of which both of them fell down resulting in injuries to both of them due to the presence of pieces of fiber on the ground. It is also submitted that the petitioner is ready to co-operate with the investigation and that he has no criminal antecedents.

5.

Heard both sides. Perused the records.

6.

It is true that the injured is seen to have sustained multiple injuries in the incident. However, Annexure-A1 reveals that the petitioner/accused has also sustained injuries in the incident. On going through the report of the Investigating Officer, it is seen that the application is opposed on the ground that if the petitioner/accused is released on bail, there is possibility of the petitioner/accused threatening the witnesses or tampering with the evidence by influencing the witnesses. The Investigating Officer does not have a case that detention and custodial interrogation of the petitioner/accused is required in this case. In this circumstance, pre-arrest bail can be granted to the petitioner/accused. However, taking into account the nature of the offences alleged against the petitioner/accused, stringent conditions are imposed.

In the result, the application is allowed subject to the following conditions :

(i) The petitioner in the event of his arrest in the aforesaid crime shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum each.

(ii) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Saturdays and Mondays between 10 a.m. and 12 noon till the final report is filed. He shall also appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required by the latter.

(iii) The petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation and he shall not intimidate or influence the witnesses in any manner or interfere with the investigation.

(iv) The petitioner shall not commit any offence(s) while on bail.