High CourtsSingle Bench

Thajudheen N.K vs State Of Kerala

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 26 September 2023 · Citation: (2023) 09 KL CK 0220

HON’BLE JUDGES
Mohammed Nias C.P., J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 439 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 34, 308, 324, 341 · Arms Act, 1959 — Section 4, 7, 25(1B)(b), 27(2)
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Bail Application No. 7976 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

12 paragraphs · 461 words

Mohammed Nias C.P., J

1.

This application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking regular bail. The petitioner is accused No.2 in Crime No. 531/2023 of Kannur Town Police Station, registered for having committed offences punishable under Sections 341, 324, 308 er/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4 r/w 25(1B) (b) 7 r/w 27 (2) of the Arms Act.

2.

The prosecution case is that, on the previous animosity, the defacto complainant questioned the third accused as he was seen with two girls on 15.4.2023 at 1.30 P.M., while the defacto complainant and others were sitting by the side of the road at Koodathumthazha Vayal in Elayavoor, the accused Nos. 1 to 3 came in two scooters and a motorcycle. Accused Nos. 2 & 3 wrongfully restrained the defacto complainant, and the 1st accused brandished a Urumi towards the head of the defacto complainant, causing injury on his forehead and thereby, attempted to commit culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Hence, the petitioner herein/accused No.2 is alleged to have committed the offences mentioned above.

3.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is totally innocent and is falsely implicated with ulterior motives. At any rate, he points out that the petitioner is in custody from 19.7.2023, and the continued custody of the petitioner is unnecessary.

4.

The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the petition and points out that the petitioner is not entitled to get bail as there are five antecedents against the petitioner.

5.

After having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor and taking into account the fact that the investigation has completed and the charge sheet has been filed on 26.7.2023 and also, the fact that the petitioner has been detained since 19.7.2023 and since there is no apprehension raised by the prosecution that if released on bail, the petitioners are likely to abscond,

I hold that bail can be granted to the petitioner despite the antecedants. Accordingly, this application is allowed, and the petitioner is granted bail, subject to the following conditions:-

1.

The petitioner shall be released on bail on executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court;

2.

The petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer as and when directed

3.

The petitioner shall not tamper or attempt to tamper with the evidence or influence or try to influence the witnesses.

4.

The petitioner shall not be involved in any other crime while on bail.

If any of the conditions are violated, the jurisdictional court concerned shall be empowered to take steps for cancellation of bail as per law.