High CourtsSingle Bench

Unnikrishnan vs State Of Kerala

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 23 March 2021 · Citation: (2021) 03 KL CK 0249

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ashok Menon, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 439 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 34, 308, 323, 324, 341
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Bail Application No. 2706 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

9 paragraphs · 433 words
1.

Application for regular bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. The applicant is the 1st accused in Crime No.124/2021 of Chalakkudy Police Station, Thrissur for having allegedly committed offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324 & 308 r/w Section 34 of IPC

2.

The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 21.02.2021 at about 7 a.m. due to the previous enmity of a dispute between the de facto complainant and the applicant who are brothers, the applicant in furtherance of common intention with the 2nd accused wrongfully restrained the de facto complainant and the applicant hit the de facto complainant with a swordstick on his neck causing an injury to his right shoulder, which could have proved fatal and the accused had knowledge about that fact. Thus they attempted to commit culpable homicide. The applicant was arrested on the same day and remanded to judicial custody and continues in remand.

3.

The applicant states that he is innocent and the allegations are not true. The injuries are not life-threatening. He has already questioned and the weapon has been recovered and moreover, the applicant has no criminal antecedents. Therefore, he seeks regular bail.

4.

Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned Public Prosecutor.

5.

The learned Public Prosecutor admits that the applicant has no criminal antecedents. The recovery has already been effected. It is also pointed out by the applicant that his wife was harassed and assaulted by the de facto complainant as is evident by Annexure 3 wound certificate. Therefore, the applicant has been falsely implicated in this crime due to the fear that the de facto complainant may implicate in that crime on the basis of the complaint filed by the wife of the applicant. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of this case, I find that further detention of the applicant may not be necessary as he has no criminal antecedents and the recovery of the weapon has been completed. Hence, the application is allowed and the applicant is directed to be released on bail on execution of 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 conditions:-

(i) He shall appear before the investigating officer as and when called for.

(ii) He shall not tamper with evidence, intimidate or influence the witnesses.

(iii) He shall not get involved in similar offences during the currency of the bail.

In case of violation of any bail condition, the prosecution is at liberty to apply for cancellation of the bail before the jurisdictional court.