Sachin V.S vs State Of Kerala

P.G. Ajithkumar, J

This is an application for bail filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

The petitioner is the 3rd accused in Crime No.1178/2023 of Pallikkathodu Police Station. The offences alleged against the petitioner and his co-accused are punishable under Sections 452, 294(b), 506(ii), 323, 324 and 308 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3 r/w 25(1)(B)(a) of the Arms Act.

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

The case of the prosecution is as follows:-

On 30.11.2023, at 07.30 p.m., the petitioners have trespassed into the office counter of a multi Gym viz. ‘360 fitness’ situated at Pallickathodu and that, pointing a pistol, the first accused had intimidated to kill the defacto complainant and other persons, who were present in the Gym. The second and third accused had pushed down the defacto complainant and struck his head against a wall. The first accused had forcibly fisted on the chest of the defacto complainant using a metallic ring. The defacto complainant thereby sustained injuries.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the younger son of the 2nd accused and the essential allegations are against accused Nos.1 and 2. Accused No.1 is the elder son of the 2nd accused. The petitioner is aged 19 years and a student of B.Sc.(Zoology). His semester examinations are scheduled to be commenced on 05.01.2024. The overt acts alleged in the F.I. statement would not show any active participation by the petitioner in the alleged offending acts and for that reason the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail. It is also pointed out that the petitioner was arrested on 01.12.2023 and he has already lost classes and in the circumstances, a lenient view was required in the matter of grant bail to him.

In the view of the learned Public Prosecutor, the petitioner has also participated in the offending acts and as the defacto complainant sustained serious injuries, granting bail to the petitioner may affect the smooth investigation.

It is true that going by the allegations in the F.I. Statement and the materials on record, the petitioner also had involved in the incident. But his role was minimal. Being the younger son of the second accused, he might have been compelled to accompany the other accused. Considering his age and the fact that he is a student who needs to attend the examinations from 05.01.2024, he deserves leniency. In the circumstances, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail.

In the result, the bail application is allowed and the petitioner is granted bail on his executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only), with two solvent sureties for the like amount each, to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate, subject to the following conditions:

(i) He shall not influence or intimidate witnesses or tamper with evidence;

(ii) He shall appear before the investigating officer as and when called for; and

(iii) During the bail period, he shall not get involved in any offence.

In case of breach of the bail conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to apply for cancellation of the bail before the jurisdictional court.