Santhosh vs State Of Kerala

Mohammed Nias C.P., J

This application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for regular bail.

The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.804/2023 of Nedumkandam Police Station, Idukki District, for having allegedly committed offences punishable under Sections 341, 324 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code.

The prosecution allegation against the petitioner is that, on 24/08/2023, at 9.00 a.m., the defacto complainant was driving an autorickshaw bearing registration No.KL-37-B-2713 through Balagram-Nedumkandam public road and reached in front of the Keerthi Hotel, Thookkupalam, the petitioner restrained the defacto complainant's autorickshaw using his car bearing registration No.TN-69-AP-7117. Thereupon, the petitioner assaulted the defacto complainant with a chopper and caused serious injuries on his left hand. Thereafter, the petitioner alleged to have hit his head with a stone, caused injury, sustained some contusion and abrasion in that scuffle, and thereby committed the aforesaid offences. The petitioner was arrested on 24.8.2023, and he has been in judicial custody since then.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has no criminal antecedents. According to him, the accused was actually injured in the incident, and the same is evident from the medical records. He would also argue that if the prosecution case is true that the petitioner used a chopper to attack the de facto complainant, there was no possibility at all of his fingers getting severely cut. Though five crimes are registered against the petitioner, they are under Sections 420 and 509. It is further submitted that continued detention of the petitioner is unnecessary. Hence, he prays for granting bail to the petitioner.

The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application and contended that the petitioner had attacked the de facto complainant, who sustained serious injuries, and all the records would clearly reveal the involvement of the petitioner in the commission of the crime and that taking into account the antecedents against the petitioner, the possibility of him adversely interfering in the investigation cannot be ruled out.

After having considered the rival contentions, perusing the case diary, taking note of the fact that the petitioner has been in custody since 24.8.2023 and that he had sustained injuries, which the prosecution alleged to be on account of a fall from a building when he tried to escape on seeing the police, whatever be the reason, the fact remains that the petitioner is under treatment at Kottayam Medical College and is also advised immediate surgery, which fact is found to be correct as the Prosecutor has verified the same. I also take note of the fact that the weapon allegedly used for the crime was already recovered. Though I agree with the prosecution that the injuries allegedly inflicted by the petitioner on the de facto complainant are serious and that there are criminal antecedents against the petitioner, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner on medical grounds as well. Accordingly, this bail application is allowed on the following conditions:-

(i) The petitioner shall be released on bail on 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 jurisdictional Court;

(ii) The petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer as and when directed till the final report is laid;

(iii) The petitioner shall not tamper or attempt to tamper with the evidence or influence or try to influence the witnesses;

(iv) The petitioner shall not be involved in any other crime while on bail;

(v) If any of the conditions are violated, the court concerned will be empowered to take steps for cancellation of bail as per law;

It is made clear that it is within the power of police to investigate the matter and, if necessary, to effect recoveries on the information, if any, given by the petitioner, even when the petitioner is on bail as per the judgment of the Apex Court in Sushila Aggarwal and others V. State (NCT of Delhi) and another [2021 (1) KHC 663].