Suresh @ Karadi Biju vs State Of Kerala

Bechu Kurian Thomas, J

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

Petitioner is the 1st accused in Crime No. 1376/2022 of East Kallada Police Station, Kollam, alleging offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 341, 326, 506(ii) and Section 308 of the Indian Penal Code 1860.

According to the prosecution, on 25.11.2022 at 14 hours, the accused attacked the defacto complainant and caused fracture of the nasal bone by hitting with a stone and thus caused grievous injuries. According to the prosecution, the accused attacked the defacto complainant due to an enmity since, the arrack allegedly distilled by the 1st accused was sold by the wife of the defacto complainant.

Sri. R.N. Sandeep, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the entire prosecution allegations are false and the incident as alleged had not occurred. It was further submitted that petitioner has been arrayed as accused due to a personal enmity with the defacto complainant and since further that he was arrested on 27.11.2022 the petitioner ought to be released on bail

Smt.T.V. Neema, the learned Public Prosecutor, opposed the grant of bail and contended that the petitioner has seven other criminal cases in his name and that alone would be sufficient to deny him the liberty. It was further submitted that petitioner is included in the rowdy sheet before a police station in Kerala and also that the prosecution is attempting to obtain custodial trial in the present case.

I have considered the rival contentions.

The petitioner is alleged to have committed offences under Sections 326 as well as Section 308 of IPC. The injuries noted are grievous. However, having regard to the period of detention already undergone, I am of the view that further detention will amount to punishment before conviction. It is also taken note that the matter is now pending consideration before the competent court as C.P. NO. 76/2022 and therefore, the possibility of an immediate trial is also very remote. No doubt, petitioner’s antecedents are not appreciable. However, taking note of the long period of detention already undergone, I am of the view that the petitioner ought to be set at liberty subject to strict conditions.

Accordingly, this application is allowed on the following conditions:-

(a) Petitioner shall be released on bail on him 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 court having jurisdiction.

(b) Petitioner shall co-operate with the trial of the case.

(c) Petitioner shall not intimidate or attempt to influence the witnesses; nor shall he attempt to tamper with the evidence.

(d) Petitioner shall not commit any similar offences while he is on bail.

(e) Petitioner shall not leave the country without the permission of the jurisdictional Court.

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