High CourtsSingle Bench

Shajith.A vs State Of Kerala

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 13 March 2023 · Citation: (2023) 03 KL CK 0134

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ziyad Rahman A. A. , J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 107, 439 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 294(b), 308, 323, 341, 354, 427, 447, 451, 506
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Bail Application No. 1769 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

18 paragraphs · 860 words

Ziyad Rahman A. A. , J

1.

This is an application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking regular bail.

2.

The petitioner is the accused in Crime No. 27/2023 of Beypore Police Station. The offences alleged against the petitioner are punishable under Sections 451, 341, 323, 354, 308 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code.

3.

The prosecution case is that, on 14.01.2023, the petitioner trespassed into the residence of the defacto complainant, held her on the bed, hit her on the head with his hand, grabbed her right hand and suffocated her by pressing her face on the bed, thereby causing injuries to the victim on her head, right shoulder and elbow. The crime was registered based on the information furnished by the victim, and as part of the investigation of the said case, the petitioner was arrested on 16.01.2023. Even though an application for bail was submitted before this Court as B.A No. 951/2023, the same was dismissed by this Court as per order dated 08.02.2023, which is produced as Annexure-V. This application is submitted in such circumstances seeking regular bail.

4.

Heard, Sri. Anoop V Nair, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.M.P. Prashanth, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.

5.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent of all the allegations. According to him, the petitioner, as well as the victim, were in a live-in relationship, and the complaint happened to be submitted on account of certain disputes that arose between them. According to him, the allegations are false. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been in custody for more than 50 days and his further incarceration is unnecessary. He seeks bail in such circumstances.

6.

On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor would point out that, besides the crime which is a subject matter of this case, he is also involved in other cases, such as Crime No.152/2022 of Kasaba Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 13 read with 63 of the Kerala Abkari Act and Crime No. 233/2022 of Beypore Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 294(b) and 506 of Indian Penal Code. In addition to the same, he was also subjected to proceedings under Section 107 of Cr.P.C. Even when the proceedings under Section 107 of Cr.P.C was pending, he got implicated in Crime No. 488/2022 of Beypore Police Station for the offences punishable under Section 447, 294(b) and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. In such circumstances, the learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application by highlighting that the petitioner is a habitual offender.

7.

I have gone through the records and heard the contentions raised from both sides. It is true that there are specific allegations against the petitioner, going by the materials produced in connection with the case at hand. However, it is a fact that, the defacto complainant sustained no serious injuries. The petitioner has been in custody since 16.01.2023, and more than 50 days are over. There is substantial progress in the investigation. Therefore, further incarceration of the petitioner appears to be not necessary. It is true that, as pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor, the petitioner is a person who got involved in certain other cases. However, it is the case of the learned counsel for the petitioner that, in some cases, he had already been acquitted and in the other cases, he was already released on bail. In such circumstances, I am of the view that the petitioner can be released on bail by imposing appropriate conditions to ensure that he is not interfering with the investigation and not influencing or intimidating the witnesses.

In such circumstances, the application is allowed on the following conditions:-

i) The petitioner shall be released on bail on executing a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.

ii) The petitioner shall fully cooperate with the investigation.

iii) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer between 10.00 a.m and 11.00 a.m every Wednesday until the filing of the final report.

iv) The petitioner shall also appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required.

v) The petitioner shall not commit any offence of similar nature while on bail.

vi) The petitioner shall not make any attempt to contact any of the prosecution witnesses, directly or through any other person, or in any other way try to tamper with the evidence or influence any witnesses or other persons related to the investigation.

vii) The petitioner shall not enter into the territorial limits of Beypore Police Station, until the filing of the final report, except to report to the police in compliance with the orders passed by this Court.

viii) The petitioner shall not leave the State of Kerala without the permission of the trial Court.

In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the jurisdictional Court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation of bail, if any, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law.