CRIME NO.31/2024 OF Sasthamcotta Police Station, Kollam v. NAIR JAYAPRABHA ARJUN BLESSY MARY SEBASTIAN PRAVEENA T. B.A. No.16
Case at a glance
- Bench
- P G AJITHKUMAR
Outcome
Bail granted
In the result, the bail application is allowed and the
Provisions considered
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 s. 438
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 34, 294(b), 323, 354, 447, 506
Key paragraphs
- Para 66. Having heard the learned counsel on both sides and considering the nature of the offence, I am of the view that the detention of the petitioners during the period of investigation is not necessary in this case. In the result, the bail application is…
Judgment
STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN – 682031 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER SASTHAMCOTTA POLICE STATION, SASTHAMCOTTA P.O, KOLLAM, PIN – 690521 BY PP SRI.PRASANTH M.P THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: B.A. No.1673 of 2024 3
O R D E R This is an application for anticipatory bail filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
The petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 6 in Crime No.31 of 2024 of Sasthamcotta Police Station, Kollam for having allegedly committed the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 447, 323, 354, 506 read with 34 of IPC,
The prosecution allegation is as follows: On the allegation that the defacto complainant refused to pay rent for the house belonging to the 1st petitioner, he along with the other accused, at about 11.00 a.m. on 23.12.2023, criminally trespassed into the said premises and abused her. The 2nd accused beat her on her shoulders and stamped her. Her dress was torn by the accused persons and the 4th accused pushed her down. The 5th and 6th accused threatened the defacto complainant.
The petitioners would contend that they did not involve in the alleged crime and without any material or evidence, they were implicated in the crime.
The learned Public Prosecutor on instructions, B.A. No.1673 of 2024 4 submitted that the investigation in the matter is in progress and grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners may adversely affect the investigation.
Operative part
Having heard the learned counsel on both sides and considering the nature of the offence, I am of the view that the detention of the petitioners during the period of investigation is not necessary in this case. In the result, the bail application is allowed and the applicants are directed to surrender before the investigating officer within two weeks. After interrogation and in the event of them being arrested, they shall be released on bail on the execution of a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) each, with two solvent sureties for the like amount each, to the satisfaction of the investigating officer, and on the following conditions:
(i) They shall not influence or intimidate witnesses or tamper with evidence;
(ii) They appear before the investigating officer as and when called for; and (iii) During the bail period, they shall not get involved in any offence. P B.A. No.1673 of 2024 5 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/- P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE B.A. No.1673 of 2024 6 APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 1673/2024 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A1 Annexure A2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE RENTAL AGREEMENT DATED 21/11/2023 EXECUTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER AND THE DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT THE TRUE COPY OF THE OUT PATIENT RECORD DATED 5/01/2024 OF THE 1ST PETITIONER
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: In the result, the bail application is allowed and the
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438; Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 34, 294(b), 323, 354, 447, 506.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.