Allowed

Jagal v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC4 Dec 2021Bail Appl./9131/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the bail application of the first accused in a case involving an assault with weapons. Finding that the investigation was complete and no additional purpose was served by detention, the court granted bail subject to strict conditions preventing tampering with witnesses and leaving the state.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail with a bond of Rs. 1,00,000 and two sureties for Rs. 1,00,000 each, subject to conditions prohibiting witness contact and leaving Kerala.

Jagal Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

B.A.No.9131/21

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.

¶6

SATURDAY, THE 4^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021 / 13TH AGRAHAYANA,

¶7

1943

¶8

BAIL APPL. NO. 9131 OF 2021

¶9

CRIME NO.448/2021 OF UDAYAMPEROOR POLICE STATION

¶10

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CMP 1214/2021 OF JUDICIAL

¶11

FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, TRIPUNITHURA

¶12

PETITIONER/1ST ACCUSED:

¶13

JAGAL, AGED 29 YEARS, S/O.BASURAN, POTTAKKANDATHIL HOUSE, UDAYAMPEROOR, POOTHOTTA, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 307.

BY ADV K.K.VINOD

RESPONDENT/STATE:

STATE OF KERALA,

REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.

¶18

R BY SMT.MAYA M.N. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶19

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.12.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

B.A.No.9131/21

ORDER

This is an application for Regular Bail filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

¶24

The petitioner is the 1^st accused in Crime No.448 of 2021 of Udayamperoor Police Station. The offences alleged against him are punishable under Sections 308, 324 and 435 read with Section 34 of IPC.

¶25

The prosecution case is that the 1^st accused who was in inimical terms with the de facto complainant, along with two other accused persons assaulted the de facto complainant on 02.07.2021 at 4 p.m with iron rod, iron stick and a chopper. The petitioner is in judicial custody since 11.10.2021.

¶26

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

¶27

The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is innocent of all the allegations and the petitioner was falsely implicated. It is pointed out that, no serious injuries

¶28

B.A.No.9131/21 3

¶29

were sustained to the de facto complainant, as well. It is also stated that final report has already been filed and no purpose would be served by retaining him under incarceration. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor seriously opposes the same as he is also involved in some other cases and if he is released on bail, he is likely to threaten the witnesses.

¶30

It is true that serious allegations are raised against the petitioner herein. It is also reported that he is also involved in other cases. However, it is a fact that he is in custody since 11.10.2021 onwards and final report has already been filed, after completing the investigation. Therefore, no purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner under incarceration any longer. The apprehension voiced by the Learned Public Prosecutor, can be addressed by imposing appropriate conditions. In such circumstances, I am of the view that he can be released on bail subject to stringent conditions.

¶31

This bail application is allowed with the following conditions:

¶32

(i) The petitioner shall be released on bail on executing a bond for Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh

¶33

B.A.No.9131/21

¶34

¶35

only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Magistrate.

¶36

(iii) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required by him.

¶37

(iv) The petitioner shall not commit any offence of like nature while on bail.

¶38

(v) The petitioner shall not make any attempt to contact any of the prosecution witnesses, directly or through any other person, or any other way try to tamper with the evidence or influence any witnesses or other persons related to the investigation.

¶39

(vi) The petitioner shall not leave State of Kerala without the permission of the trial Court.

¶40

Sd/-

¶41

ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.

¶42

JUDGE

¶43

DG/4.12.21

Jagal v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagal v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahesh Kumar Vs State of Kerala

G.Vinod Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Suneer.P.K Vs State of Kerala

Sree Gokulam Chit and Finance Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs Rasheed P.S

Sunil James Vs State of Kerala

K R Prakash Vs State of Kerala