High CourtsSingle Bench

Saneesh K vs State Of Kerala

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 30 March 2021 · Citation: (2021) 03 KL CK 0353

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ashok Menon, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 438 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 143, 147, 148, 149, 307, 308, 324, 326, 341
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Bail Application No. 1727 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

11 paragraphs · 462 words
1.

This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.

2.

The applicant is the 5th accused in Crime No.661/2020 of Dharmadam Police Station for having allegedly committed the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 324 and 308 read with Section 149 of the I.P.C.

3.

The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 16.12.2020 at about 4.45 PM, the applicant and the rest of the accused formed an unlawful assembly, committed riot armed with deadly weapons like iron pipes and wooden sticks and in prosecution of the common object of the said unlawful assembly, they wrongfully restrained the de facto complainant and assaulted him with the knowledge that the assault could prove fatal and thus attempted to commit culpable homicide.

4.

The applicant states that he is innocent and the allegations are not true and that due to political reasons he has been implicated as an accused. It is also stated that there is also no specific overt act attributed to him and he was not wielding any weapon and the accused who have been arrested were already enlarged on bail, and therefore, there is no necessity for custodial interrogation of the applicant and hence he may be released on bail.

5.

Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned Public Prosecutor.

6.

The learned Public Prosecutor points out that the applicant has criminal antecedents and that he was earlier involved in offences punishable under Sections 326 and 307 of the I.P.C. in the year 2017. But subsequent to that he was not involved in any other crime. The prosecution case indicates that the applicant was not wielding any weapon. The injuries sustained are not very serious or grave. Under the circumstances, I find that custodial interrogation of the applicant may not be required for the purpose of investigation.

In the result, the bail application is allowed and the applicant is directed to surrender before the investigating officer within two weeks. In the event of arrest, after interrogation, the applicant shall be released on bail on the execution of a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only), with two solvent sureties for the like amount each, to the satisfaction of the investigating officer, and on the following conditions:

(i) He shall not influence or intimidate witnesses or tamper with evidence;

(ii) He shall appear before the investigating officer on all Mondays between 9.00 AM and 12.00 noon for a period of two months or till the final report is filed, whichever is earlier; and

(iii) During the bail period, he shall not get involved in any similar offences.

In case of breach of the bail conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to apply for cancellation of the bail before the jurisdictional court.