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
22 paragraphs · 459 wordsThe applicant is the 2nd accused in Crime No.1180/2020 of Kayamkulam Police Station, Alappuzha District, for having allegedly committed
offences punishable under Sections 323,324 and 308 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The prosecution case, in brief, is this:
On 23-06-2020, at about 12.30 PM, the applicant, in furtherance of common intention with two others, due to previous enmity towards the defacto
complainant assaulted him by means of a dangerous weapon like a knife and caused injuries to him which could have proved fatal and thus the
applicant and the other co-accused committed the offence of attempted culpable homicide. The applicant states that he is innocent and that he is
working in a provision store and it was the defacto complainant and his friends, who had actually attacked the applicant with weapons due to rivalry
between the defacto complainant and the 1st accused. The applicant was arrested on 26-01-2021 and has been in custody since then. He is the sole
breadwinner of his family consisting of his parents, wife and children. He has no criminal antecedents and therefore, he seeks bail.
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicant and also the learned Public Prosecutor. The learned Public Prosecutor admits that the
applicant has no criminal antecedents. But it is submitted that despite interrogation of the applicant, the material object used for stabbing the defacto
complainant could not be recovered. It is the applicant, who had used the knife to stab the defacto complainant on the side of his head which could
have proved fatal. And, hence, the application for bail is opposed.
After having heard the submissions on both sides, I find that the applicant has been in custody since 26-01-2021 and the recovery is not yet made.
Custodial interrogation of the applicant is no longer possible. Under the circumstances, I find no reason for detention of the applicant.
In the result, the application is allowed and the applicant is directed to be released on bail on the execution of a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty
thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court and on following further conditions:
(i) He shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Saturdays between 9.00 AM and 12.00 PM for a period of two months or till filing of the
final report whichever is earlier.
(ii) He shall not intimidate or influence witnesses and tamper with evidence.
(iii) He shall not get involved in similar offences during the currency of the bail period.
In case of breach of any of the bail conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to apply for cancellation of the bail before the jurisdictional court.
The bail application is allowed.
