Shejeer vs State Of Kerala

C.S.Dias, J

The application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the accused 3 and 6 in Crime No.1119/2023 of the Valappad Police Station, Thrissur, registered against the accused (six in number), for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 447, 294(b), 427 and 308 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioners were arrested on 30.11.2023 and 01.12.2023, respectively.

The essence of the prosecution case is that: around 8 p.m. on 29.11.2023, the 6th accused had trespassed into the shop of the defacto complainant and the 1st accused uttered obscene words and slapped him. The 2nd accused hit him on his head and the accused 5 and 6 kicked him. The accused 3 and 4 hit him on his back, leg and head with an iron rod and thereby caused injuries. The accused 3 and 4 destroyed the front glass of his vehicle and caused a loss of Rs.17,000/. If the defacto complainant had not prevented the attack, it would have resulted in his death. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences.

Heard; Sri.Liffy P.Francis, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri.C.S.Hrithwik, the learned Public Prosecutor.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are totally innocent of the accusations leveled against them. They are in custody for the last 54 days. The investigation in the case is practically complete. The recovery has been effected. The petitioners' further detention is unnecessary. They are willing to abide by any stringent condition that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, the bail application may be allowed.

The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. He contended that the investigation is still in progress. The 2nd petitioner/6th accused is a history sheeter. There are ten other cases registered against him. If he is let off on bail, there is every likelihood of him committing similar offences. Moreover, proceedings under the KAAPA Act is initiated against him. Likewise, two other crimes have been registered against the 1st petitioner/3rd accused. Nonetheless, he conceded to the fact that the investigation in the case is practically complete.

After bestowing my anxious consideration to the materials placed on record, particularly taking note of the fact that the investigation in the case is practically complete and the antecedents alleged against the 1st petitioner is of the years 2013 and 2016, and the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the 1st petitioner has already been acquitted, I am of the view that further detention of the 1st petitioner/3rd accused is not necessary. Nonetheless, taking into account the criminal antecedents of the 2nd petitioner/ 6th accused and the fact that there is every likelihood of him committing similar offences and that proceedings under the KAAPA Act have been initiated against him, I am of the view that the 2nd petitioner/6th accused is not entitled to be released on bail.

In the result;

(1) The bail application filed by the 2nd petitioner/6th accused is dismissed;

(2) The bail application filed by the 1st petitioner/3rd accused is allowed by directing him to be released on bail on him executing a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum, to the satisfaction of the court having jurisdiction, which shall be subject to the following conditions:

(i) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer on every Saturday between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m for a period of two months or till the final report is laid, whichever is earlier. He shall also appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required;

(ii) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or procure to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any Police Officer or tamper with the evidence in any manner, whatsoever;

(iii) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while he is on bail;

(iv) The petitioner shall surrender his passport, if any, before the court below at the time of execution of the bond. If he has no passport, he shall file an affidavit to the effect before the court below on the date of execution of the bond;

(v) The petitioner shall furnish his present address and permanent address, and his mobile phone number to the court below and the Investigating Officer;

(vi) In case of violation of any of the conditions mentioned above, the jurisdictional court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation of bail, if any filed, and pass orders on the same, in accordance with law;

(vii) Applications for deletion/modification of the bail conditions shall be moved and entertained by the court below;

(viii) Needless to mention, it would be well within the powers of the Investigating Officer to investigate the matter and, if necessary, to effect recoveries on the information, if any, given by the petitioner even while the petitioner is on bail as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sushila Aggarwal v. State of Delhi and another [2020 (1) KHC 663].