High CourtsSingle Bench

Ubaid vs State Of Kerala And Ors

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 22 February 2021 · Citation: (2021) 02 KL CK 0032

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ashok Menon, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 34, 323, 324, 308
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Bail Application No. 1491 Of 2021
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

22 paragraphs · 459 words
1.

The 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:

2.

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.

3.

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.

4.

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.

5.

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.