Kerala High Court
Bail Appl./10461/2022 of PRASANNAN, Vs STATE OF KERALA, on 30 December 2022
COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 9TH POUSHA, 1944 BAIL APPL. NO. 10461 OF 2022 CRIME NO.996/2022 OF Chengannoor Police Station, Alappuzha AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENTCRMP 4838/2022 OF DISTRICT & SESSIONS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAMPRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR
FRIDAY, THE 30[TH] DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 9TH POUSHA, 1944
BAIL APPL. NO. 10461 OF 2022
CRIME NO.996/2022 OF Chengannoor Police Station, Alappuzha AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENTCRMP 4838/2022 OF DISTRICT & SESSIONSCOURT, ALAPPUZHA
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
PRASANNAN,AGED 59 YEARSS/O. NARAYANAN,POOTHAM KUNNIL HOUSE, MULAKKUZHJA MURI,PERINGALA VILLAGE, CHENGANNUR, ALAPPUZHAPIN – 689121BY ADVS.P.THOMAS GEEVERGHESETONY THOMAS (INCHIPARAMBIL)E.S.FIROSAMRUTHA K.P.SRADHA MOHAN
RESPONDENT/STATE:
STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM PIN – 682031BY ADV.SRI.P G MANU, SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON30.12.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
P.G. AJITHKUMAR, J. ------------------------------- B.A.No. 10461 of 2022
-------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 30[th] day of December, 2022
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
This is an application for bail filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
2. The petitioneris the accused in Crime No.996 of 2022
of Chengannur Police Station. He allegedly had committedthe offences punishable under Section 447, 324 and 307 ofthe Indian Penal Code, 1860.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and thelearned Public Prosecutor.
4. The prosecution allegation is that due to previousanimosity, on 7-11-2022 at 8.30 p.m., with an intention tocommit murder of the defacto complainant’s mother andsister, the accused, who is the father of the defactocomplainant, criminally trespassed into the house of thedefacto complainant, named Kalathileth Padinjattathil House in Karakkad Muri, Mulakkuzha Village and while the defactocomplainant’s mother was feeding chickens at a shedadjacent to the above house, stabbed on her stomach, chest,chin and head with a knife. When the defacto complainant’ssister intervened to prevent the accused, he chased after andattempted to kill her. Hence the accused is alleged to havecommitted the above mentioned offences.
5. The petitionerwould contend that hedid not involvein the alleged crime and without any material or evidence, hehas been implicated in the crime. He is innocent. Theinvestigation in the matter has been progressed considerablyand there is no reason or justification for his furtherdetention, having he been in judicial custody since 9.11.2022.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor would submit thatconsidering the seriousness of the offence and the possibilityof interfering with the investigation by the petitioner in theevent of his release on bail, this petition deserves only to bedismissed.
7. From the materials available on record, it is seen that the present incident emnated from the matrimonialdispute between the petitioner and the de facto complainant.It is seen that, for some time, there has been matrimonialdisharmony between them. Learned counsel appearing forthe petitioner would point out that presence of a stranger inthe scene of crime with whom the victim alleged to havesuppressed illegal relationship has been mentioned in herstatement before police. Considering those aspects and alsothe fact that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since09.11.2022, I am of the view that the petitioner can bereleased on bail, by imposing strict conditions.
In the result, the bail application is allowed and thepetitioneris granted bail on his executing a bond forRs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only), with two solventsureties for the like amount each, to the satisfaction of thelearned Magistrate, subject to the following conditions:
(i) Heshall not influence or intimidatewitnesses or tamper with evidence;
(ii) Heshall appear before the investigating
Conclusion
officer as and when called for; and
(iii) During the bail period, Heshall not get involved in any offense.
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.
Sd/-
vv
P.G. AJITHKUMARJUDGE
APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 10461/2022
PETITIONER ANNEXURESAnnexure1
CERTIFIED COPY OF ORDER IN CRLMP.NO.4838/2022 OF SESSIONS COURT,ALAPPUZHA