High CourtsSingle Bench

Sarath Kumar vs State Of Kerala

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 13 April 2023 · Citation: (2023) 04 KL CK 0123

HON’BLE JUDGES
A. Badharudeen, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 34, 323, 326, 341
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Bail Application No. 1362 Of 2023
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

14 paragraphs · 481 words

A. Badharudeen, J

1.

Anticipatory bail application filed by the 1st accused in Crime No.915/2022 of Vadakkancherry Police Station, Palakkad, is the crux of this petition.

2.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor.

3.

I have perused the relevant documents.

4.

The prosecution case is that, at about 19.30 hrs on 7.9.2022, the accused herein wrongfully restrained and caused grievous hurt to the de facto complainant. It is on this premise, the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 341, 323 and 326 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

5.

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, even though the de facto complainant sustained serious injuries including fractures, there is no allegation against the 1st accused that he did use any weapon or he caused any serious injuries. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner has no criminal antecedents and he is ready to co-operate with the investigation.

6.

The learned Public Prosecutor also submitted that the overt acts, at the instance of the 2nd accused, caused fracture on nasal bone as well as nasal process of the de facto complainant. It is submitted further that, there is no allegation for the prosecution that the 1st accused used any weapon.

7.

On perusal of the case records, there is no allegation for the prosecution that the 1st accused used any weapon. The injuries appears to be at the volition of the 2nd accused. He was arrested, recovery was effected and subsequently released on bail. Since the complicity of the petitioner is in the above narrow compass, I do not think that, arrest and custodial interrogation of the petitioner, are necessary for the investigation of the crime. Therefore, the petitioner herein can be enlarged on anticipatory bail, on conditions.

Accordingly,  the  bail  application  is  allowed  and  the petitioner is released on anticipatory bail, on the following conditions:

i. The petitioner shall surrender before the Investigating Officer within ten days from today and on such surrender, the Investigating Officer can question the petitioner. In the event of his arrest, the Investigating Officer shall produce the petitioner before the jurisdictional court on the date of arrest itself.

ii. On such production, the jurisdictional court shall release the petitioner on bail, on executing bond for Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand only) by himself and by two solvent sureties, each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court.

iii. The petitioner shall co-operate with investigation and shall be made available for interrogation and for the purpose of investigation, as and when the Investigating Officer directs so.

iv. The petitioner, shall not, intimidate the witnesses or interfere with the investigation in any manner.

v. The petitioner shall not commit any offence during currency of this bail and any such involvement is a reason to cancel the bail hereby granted.