High CourtsSingle Bench(2021) 09 KL CK 0017

Rajesh vs State Of Kerala

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 2 September 2021

HON’BLE JUDGES
M.R.Anitha, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Bail Appl. No. 6422 Of 2021

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

14 paragraphs · 463 words

M.R.Anitha, J

1.

Petitioner is the first accused in crime No.314/2021 of Mangalam Dam Police Station, Palakkad, which is registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 325 and 354 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 92(b) of the Right of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.

2.

The prosecution allegation is that on 05.08.2021 at about 11 p.m., the defacto complainant intervened on seeing that accused Nos.1 and 2 assaulted her father at the residence of her sister where she was beaten by the first accused which resulted in loss of her two teeth in front row. It is also alleged that the second accused wrongfully restrained the defacto complainant's sister and the first accused kicked on her abdomen and the first accused chased the defacto complainant in his motor cycle when she tried to ran away and thereby committed the aforesaid crime.

3.

Heard both sides.

4.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was arrested on 07.08.2021 and since then he is in custody. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the only non-bailable offence alleged is Section 354 IPC. The allegations raised by the prosecution, according to him, do not attract the offence under Section 354 IPC. All other offences are bailable offences. Taking into account the period of confinement already undergone by the him, he seeks for grant of bail.

5.

The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, contend that petitioners actually fisted at the face of the defacto complainant, which resulted in loss of two teeth. But it is admitted that he has no criminal antecedents. He has undergone confinement from 07.08.2021 onwards. Investigation is also progressing

In the said circumstances, I do not think that continued confinement of the petitioner is necessary. In the said circumstances, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner on the following conditions:-

i. Petitioner shall be released on bail on executing bond for a sum of Rs.35,000/- (Rupees thirty five thousand only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court;

ii. He shall report before the Investigating Officer on every Monday between 9.00 am and 11.00 am for three months.

iii. He shall surrender his passport before the jurisdictional court within ten days from the date of release; if he does not possess passport, an affidavit shall be filed to that effect;

iv. He shall not try to contact or influence the witnesses or tamper with the evidence;

v. He shall not involve in any crime during the period on bail.

vi. If any of the above conditions are violated by the petitioner, the jurisdictional court will be at liberty to cancel the bail in accordance with law.

This bail application is allowed as above..