This Kerala High Court Motor Accident Claims Appeal arises from an order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kalpetta, in O.P(MV) No.393/2009. The appellant, Suneer U., a cable TV worker, was injured on 26 June 2009 when a motorcycle (KL-12/B 8775) driven rashly by the 1st respondent struck him while he was walking; the motorcycle was owned by the 2nd respondent and insured by the 3rd respondent. The Tribunal partly allowed the petition, directing the 3rd respondent to pay Rs.1,51,280 with 7.5% interest and costs. The appellant challenged the quantum, head of compensation, and the disability assessment. Ext.A5 shows a serious head injury; Ext.C1, a Medical Board disability certificate, certifies 10% permanent disability. The Tribunal adopted 6% disability under the McBride scale. Relying on Union of India v. Talwinder Singh (2012) and notional income precedents (Ramachandrappa; Syed Sadhiq), the High Court re-evaluates the medical facts and income. It sets the monthly notional income at Rs.6,000, holds the disability period at six months, and recalculates several heads (loss of earnings, bystander expenses, permanent disability) to yield a higher compensation. The appeal is allowed in part, enhancing compensation by Rs.1,16,820 with 7.5% interest, subject to deposit within two months and freedom for withdrawal of the enhanced amount upon certification of deposit.
RC Rev. No. 162 of 2018; RCA 187/2016 This is a Kerala High Court Rent Control Revision involving Usha, Abinav, and Aswathi (LRs of the tenant) challenging orders under the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1965. The essential dispute centers on whether a landlord-tenant relationship persists after the predecessor-in-interest, Manmadhan, allegedly acquired or merged interest in the land and building. The 1989 lease from Chathu’s predecessor in interest to Manmadhan is undisputed, and the land originally belonged to Kuttippuram Kovilakam. A partition suit with a receiver led to sale of land, and Manmadhan purchased the land in 2002. The revision petitioners contend that, since the revisionist acquired larger ownership interests in the land, it amounts to merger, extinguishing the landlord-tenant relationship and rendering eviction proceedings unsustainable. They also argue that determining title is a civil matter, and the appellate authority had no jurisdiction to adjudicate on title during eviction proceedings. The respondents counter that Manmadhan did not acquire the entire rights to the building; the sale by the receiver conferred jenmam in land, not a total transfer of building interest, and rent was paid up to 2015. The court ultimately held that there exists a landlord-tenant relationship and that eviction is maintainable, while allowing the petitioners a chance to present evidence if they can prove building interest. The revision petition was dismissed with liberty to revisit on proof of building interest.
Joy s/o Poulose challenges his conviction under Section 8(2) of the Abkari Act by the Additional Sessions Court (Adhoc) Fast Track Court No. I, Thrissur, in Sessions Case No. 816/2007. The prosecution alleged possession of 2.5 litres of illicit liquor on 5 December 2004 at Mannamangalam. The trial court found him guilty and sentenced him to one year’s rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1 lakh. In appeal, the appellant contends that the arrest and seizure are doubtful because the prosecution did not produce the arrest memo, and there is no evidence that such a memo was prepared or that the accused was arrested. He also argues that the illicit sample was not shown to have been subjected to a Chemical Examiner’s analysis with proper chain of custody. The court relies on Ramankutty to hold that non‑compliance with mandatory arrest procedures fatally undermines the prosecution; on Viswanadhan to emphasize that a tamper‑proof chain is necessary for the sample to be reliable; and on Sasidharan, Sathi, Ravi, Rajamma and Daulat Ram to stress that the sample must be the same substance tested in the lab and that the seal, specimen and chain of custody must be properly established. The judgment finds that the prosecution failed to prove these crucial links and thus acquits the appellant, allowing the appeal and setting him at liberty with interim orders to be disbursed as per law.
This is a bail application (B.A. No.1813 of 2024) by the 7th accused in Crime No.947/2023 of Thamarassery Police Station, Kozhikode, challenging custodial detention under Section 439 CrPC. The prosecution case, allegedly amounting to a conspiracy, states that on 13.12.2023, the de facto complainant traveling after purchasing gold was intercepted by two cars; he was dragged from the car, beaten with iron rods, and Rs.68,00,000 was robbed. Seven other accused are involved; the petitioner was arrested on 17.12.2023. The petitioner contends complete innocence, asserting false implication and that the investigating officer has added non-bailable offences merely to deny bail; he has already been in judicial custody for over 90 days. The Public Prosecutor counters with the petitioner’s criminal antecedents (ten other cases) and asserts risk of reoffending if released, though she concedes that the final report has not yet been laid within the statutory period. The court notes that the investigation remains incomplete and that Section 167(2) provides a possible right to bail after default in filing the challan, a principle derived from Sanjay Dutt and later affirmed by Uday Mohanlal Acharya, and discussed with Hitendra Vishnu Thakur and Sushila Aggarwal in the related discussions. Ultimately, the court holds that the petitioner’s indefeasible right to statutory bail has accrued and grants bail, imposing standard conditions and protections for the investigation and potential consequences for violation.
This Motor Accidents Claims Appeal arises from an award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kalpetta, in O.P.(M.V.) No.445/2007 dated 10 January 2012, awarding compensation for injuries suffered in a road accident on 29 April 2007 when a Jeep collided with the appellant’s motorcycle. The appellant, K. Unnikrishnan, challenged the quantum of compensation, contending that the Tribunal erred in fixing a low monthly income (Rs. 3,000) despite evidence suggesting higher earnings and that several heads of compensation were inadequately assessed (bystander expenses, extra nourishment, pain and suffering, loss of amenities of life, clothing, transportation, and future treatment). The insurer admitted coverage; the 1st and 2nd respondents contested liability; they were ex parte in the petition. The Tribunal found rash and negligent driving by the Jeep’s driver and awarded Rs. 3,02,340 with 7.5% interest. The High Court allowed the appeal in part, applying the Ramachandrappa doctrine to fix a higher notional monthly income (Rs. 6,000 for 2007), reassessing loss of earnings over six months, and enhancing compensation under several heads: disability, pain and suffering (Rs. 40,000), bystander and nourishment (Rs. 15,000–25,000 total), transportation (Rs. 6,000), clothing (Rs. 500 more), and loss of amenities in life (Rs. 15,000). The total additional compensation was Rs. 2,66,240 with 7.5% interest, and the insurer was directed to deposit the enhanced amount within two months of receiving a certified copy of the judgment. The appeal is allowed accordingly.
W.P.(C). No. 7503 of 2022 This writ petition, filed by the mother of a ten-year-old girl who was sexually assaulted by her father, seeks permission to terminate the pregnancy of the minor under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971. At the time of filing, the child was around 31 weeks pregnant with breech presentation, exposing both mother and fetus to serious health risks. A Medical Board, directed by an interim order of this court, examined the pregnancy and reported that operative delivery would be required, with substantial anesthesia and surgical risks; the baby’s estimated weight at 30 weeks 6 days was 1.557 kg, with an 80% chance of survival if born alive, yet accompanied by neonatal morbidities and potential adverse neurodevelopmental outcomes. The Board noted ethical and medicolegal obligations to resuscitate and care for a viable newborn. The petition invoked social and legal concerns surrounding child sexuality and maternal health. The court referred to a Bombay High Court decision in XYZ v. Union of India (2019) to emphasize welfare of the newborn and state responsibility when a child survives, under Article 226 powers. Ultimately the court disposed of the petition by directing the 5th respondent to proceed with termination within one week under the MTP Act, with directions for hospital and state agencies to assume responsibility if the child is born alive and to ensure best medical care.
RCRev. Nos.142 and 143 of 2019 These rent-control revisions under Section 20 of the Kerala Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 challenge the common judgment dated 26 November 2018 in RCA Nos. 66 and 68 of 2011 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority (RCAA), Thrissur, which in turn arose from order dated 19 March 2011 in R.C.P Nos. 111 and 115 of 2008 on the file of the Rent Control Court (RCC), Thrissur. The revision petitioners are landlords seeking eviction of tenants from a three-storied building to expand their jewellery business, proposing to partition the building into three premises for own occupation. The RCC had dismissed eviction, finding the need not bona fide. The RCAA reversed, allowing eviction under Section 11(8) and holding the need bona fide, while discarding reliance on Section 11(3). The revisions challenge the RCAA’s conclusion, arguing that 11(8) was misapplied and evidence supports bona fide need; The respondents contend the claim is a ruse and that the tenants’ livelihood depends on the tenanted space, with no suitable alternative nearby. The High Court held that the RCAA correctly found a bona fide need under 11(8), clarified that 11(3) and 11(8) are separate grounds, and examined comparative hardship but found no grounds to interfere. It dismissed the revisions, but granted six months’ time to vacate with an undertaking to vacate by 19/12/2022, arrears payment, and continued rent until vacatur.
This is a Motor Accident Claims Appeal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, arising from an award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor, in O.P.(MV) No.222/2009. The petitioner Sukumaran sustained injuries on 11.09.2008 when a car driven rashly hit him while he walked along the road. The Tribunal held negligence by the driver, awarded Rs. 90,847 total compensation, and directed the insurer to pay. Sukumaran contends the quantum is inadequate in light of his alleged income as a welder and the extent of disability. He asserts the Tribunal erred in fixing monthly income at Rs.3,500 instead of Rs.4,500 claimed by him; relying on Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd., the notional income for 2008 should be Rs.6,500 for a coolie where the worker’s income is not proved. The disability certificate shows 5% permanent disability, but the Tribunal reduced it to 3% without cogent reasons; this is challenged. Notably, the appellant seeks application of 10% future prospects and a 13‑year multiplier (Sarla Verma; Pranay Sethi), and enhanced compensation for pain, loss of amenities, and extra nourishment. The respondents defend the Tribunal’s income figure and disability assessment. The High Court partially allows the appeal, recalculates compensation, and directs the insurer to deposit Rs.1,74,547 with 8% interest, while settling liability issues and disbursement.”
WP(C) No. 5956 of 2020; WP(C) No. 5965 of 2020 These writ petitions challenge communications issued by Mahatma Gandhi University refusing to approve the appointment of Dr. Tiji Zachariah as Principal of Baselios Paulose II Catholicos College, a private aided minority institution, on the ground that the appointee lacked qualifications under UGC Regulations, 2010 (IV Amendment), particularly clause 4.2.0 and its API score requirement. The college had been recognised as a Minority Educational Institution under Article 30 of the Constitution, and the management had entered into a Direct Payment Agreement for appointments, subject to compliance with statutory provisions. The petitions trace the appointment history from 2014 through 2015, including Ext.P5 (appointment of the petitioner as Principal from 1.10.2015), Ext.P6–P9 (approval-related communications), and Ext.P10 (university’s rejection of approval in 2018). The key legal issue is whether the University could insist on UGC qualifications for a Principal appointed in 2015–2016 in view of the State’s adoption of UGC Regulations in 2010 and subsequent Supreme Court guidance on the date of applicability. The Full Bench’s 2016 decision (Radhakrishna Pillai) mandating UGC compliance, and the Supreme Court’s 2018 clarification that applicability is from 23.2.2016 except for individual High Court parties, frame the dispute. The High Court ultimately allows the petitions, quashes Ext.P10 and Ext.P14, holds that API/4.2.0 cannot be imposed on the petitioner, and directs the University to decide Ext.P12 revised order (1.10.2015) in light of the applicable provisions as on 1.10.2015 within four weeks.
Kalyani, a 67-year-old petitioner, seeks a writ of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution to compel the Special Tahsildar (LR), Ottappalam, to conduct an expeditious enquiry and dispose of S.M. No.832/2018 on the file of the Land Tribunal, Ottappalam. The suo motu proceedings were initiated under Rule 5 of the Kerala Land Reforms (Vesting and Assignment) Rules, 1970, for assignment of the landlord’s right, title and interest vested in the Government under Section 72 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, and for issuance of a certificate of purchase under Section 72K, in respect of 0.0520 hectares in Sy.No.157/13, Block No.20, Thenkurissi-II Village, Alathur Taluk, Palakkad. The petitioner argues that being a senior citizen, she requires expeditious resolution, particularly since the length of pending matters delays access to credit from banks. The respondent pleads the overall pendency of Land Tribunal cases (2434) and emphasizes adherence to statutory procedures. The Court revisits Narayanan Namboodiri v. Special Tahsildar (LR) and others, noting the obligation to dispose cases in seniority and to expedite matters involving senior citizens, as per the directions in that judgment and GO 2018 RD. The Court ultimately directs the Land Tribunal to dispose of S.M.832/2018 strictly in accordance with law and the Narayanan Namboodiri directions, within the relevant legal framework, without awarding costs.
This criminal appeal under section 374(2) Cr.P.C. challenges the judgment convicting the appellant, Gopinathan, for manufacturing arrack under sections 55(g) and 8(1) and (2) of the Abkari Act in SC 446/2008, arising from Crime No. 28/2007 of the Perunad police station, Pathanamthitta district. On 25 February 2007, police, acting on reliable information, reached a remote area in Perunad village and found the accused along with others engaged in illicit distillation. A fire was lit, a large distillation setup was in use, and approximately 40 litres of arrack were found in two jars, with about 3750 litres of wash concealed nearby in 250 tins. Samples were drawn and the wash destroyed at the spot; the items and accused were seized and registered. Three witnesses testified for the prosecution, including the Sub Inspector; one independent witness turned hostile. The chemist’s report Ext. P9 established ethyl alcohol in the samples. The defence contended lack of proof of actual possession, and argued that Ext. P1 lacked a sample seal, relying on Sajeevan and Nadarajan to challenge the seizure. The trial court convicted, others were acquitted. The High Court, while upholding the conviction, reduced the sentence from five years’ RI to two years’ RI with a Rs. 1,00,000 fine on each count, and disposed of the appeal.
Two bail petitions under Section 439 CrPC were heard together by Justice C. S. Dias in the Kerala High Court arising from Crime No. 214/2024 of the Punalur Police Station, Kollam. The petitioners in Bail Appl. Nos. 1659/2024 (Vinuraj) and 1726/2024 (Nibin, Jomon George, Akhil) are accused Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 7 in a case involving alleged abduction of Shyam Kumar, his wrongful confinement, and a ransom demand of Rs 20 lakh, with the offences under 341, 363, 364A and 365 read with 34 IPC. They have been in custody since 10 February 2024. The prosecution describes the abductee as a person with a large number of prior cheating cases (about 250). The petitioners argued false involvement and challenged the inclusion of 364A and 365 to deny bail; they asserted investigation was nearly complete and recovery had been made. The Public Prosecutor urged caution, noting ongoing investigation and the abductee’s criminal antecedents but conceding the investigation was progressing. The court found the material not to be strongly against the petitioners, noted the custody period and near-completion of investigation, and granted bail with conditions including bond, two sureties, weekly IO appearances, no intimidation or tampering with witnesses, passport surrender where applicable, and the power to cancel/modify bail. The order cites Sushila Aggarwal for the permissible scope of bail conditions and IO power.
WP(C) Nos.23186 of 2022 & connected cases These consolidated writ petitions challenge the Government Order G.O.(MS.) No.121/2022/G.Edn. dated 07.07.2022, and the Plus One admission prospectus for 2022-23 in Private Aided Higher Secondary Schools. The petitions allege that reducing the management quota to 20% (from earlier levels) and the accompanying requirement that school management declare the community to which they belong and reserve 10% of seats for that community (with conversion to merit seats if the community is not declared) violate Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution and other constitutional principles. The Kerala High Court, while upholding the 20% management quota as a valid policy decision, holds the 10% community quota to be arbitrary and unconstitutional, and directs that those seats be treated as open merit seats to be filled via the Centralized Allotment Process (CAP). Admissions already made on community declarations are not disturbed. The judgment discusses historical quotas, the 2005 GO, CAP, and precedents on policy review and quotas, concluding that policy decisions may be reviewed but not overridden on grounds of policy convenience. The order disposes of the petitions, directing compliance with the open-merit CAP mechanism for the contested seats.
Sanjay Oraon, the appellant, was convicted under Section 302 IPC by the I Additional Sessions Court, Mavelikkara for murdering Hafijul Mohammed (Kaliya) on 18.06.2014. The High Court of Kerala, in a Division Bench, reheard CRL.A. No.910/2016 and scrutinized the prosecution’s circumstantial case built on the last-seen-together theory, motive, recovery of MO8 pants bearing human blood of group 'A', and post-mortem findings showing multiple head injuries. The prosecution argued a chain of circumstances, with the accused allegedly seen with the victim at 3:00 p.m. and returning to the hall with a wooden piece to strike the victim, who died around 5:45 p.m. The defense contended the investigation was tainted and collusive, with suppression of mobile data and lack of independent witnesses; the motive was flimsy and the FIR belated. The court found serious flaws in the investigation: FIR delay, non-visit to the scene by the investigating officer, suppression of crucial facts, and unreliable testimony from witnesses who were PW1’s workers. Relying on various precedents, including Praful Sudhakar Parab and Zahira Habibulla Sheikh, the bench held that the evidence did not establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt and severely criticized the tainted investigation. The court acquitted Oraon and, exercising Article 226 powers, directed a de novo reinvestigation by a Special Investigation Team and a departmental inquiry into the police conduct.
BAIL APPL. NO. 851 OF 2024 Prakash, the petitioner, is the accused in Crime No.3/2024 of the Ernakulam Excise Range Office, Perumbavoor, Ernakulam, facing alleged offences under Sections 55(i) and 67B of the Kerala Abkari Act in connection with the sale of four liters of Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL). The incident reportedly occurred on 05.01.2024 around 6:10 PM, when the accused was found selling liquor from his scooter near Perumani; upon seeing an excise party, he fled and contraband was seized from the vehicle, forming the basis for the charge. The petitioner applied for pre-arrest bail under Section 438 CrPC, arguing his innocence and asserting false implication; he contends that mere possession of liquor does not attract the relevant offences, there was no recovery, and custodial interrogation is unnecessary. He relies on authorities including Mohanan v. State of Kerala, Sobichan v. State, and Nobbey v. State of Kerala to argue that possession alone is insufficient to attract liability. The Public Prosecutor opposed the application, pointing to a public-place sale of contraband, the accused’s flight, and the need for custodial interrogation and recovery to advance the investigation. The Sessions Court dismissed the Crl.M.C. No.133/2024 and held custodial interrogation necessary. The High Court cited Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre, Sibbia, and Jai Prakash Singh to emphasize careful, discretionary, fact-specific analysis for anticipatory bail. Ultimately, the High Court found no exceptional grounds to grant pre-arrest bail and dismissed the bail petition, while directing surrender within ten days with a conditional pathway for meritorious consideration if surrendered.
This High Court of Kerala MACA 311/2016 appeal arises from the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Kozhikode, which awarded compensation to the parents and siblings of a deceased rider in a road-traffic collision that occurred on 20.11.2014. The insurer (National Insurance Company Ltd) challenges the quantum of the MACT award. The tribunal had held negligence on the driver and directed payment of Rs.11,45,000 by the insurer. The appellant contends that several heads—loss of estate, funeral expenses, mental agony, and love and affection—were either excessive or not legally arising in the particular context, and that the income of the deceased was understated. The court relies on established Supreme Court precedents to recompute the compensation: Ramachandrappa fixes the notional monthly income of the deceased as Rs.9,500; Pranay Sethi provides for 40% future prospects and a multiplier of 18; Sarla Verma guides the deduction of 1/2 for personal living expenses and prescribes the appropriate multiplier. Since the deceased was 20 and had multiple dependents, the court also applies loss of dependency calculations accordingly. The court notes that compensation for love and affection is superseded where loss of consortium has already been compensated, following Somwati. Ultimately, the appeal results in a consolidated and enhanced figure with specified heads revised, and the insurer ordered to deposit Rs.15,99,500 with interest within two months for disbursement to the petitioners.
WA 811 of 2020 (and connected cases) This is a reference-litigation bundle before a Full Bench of the Kerala High Court concerning the Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO) and pension-related entitlement under the Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995, particularly regarding the computation of pension for employees in exempted establishments and the permissible scope of remittance based on actual salary versus the statutory ceiling. The Special Bench observed that the common judgment dated 25.02.2020 in WP(C) 2019-era matters (and connected cases) allowed employees to remit additional contributions to the pension fund either by adjusting amounts already in the provident fund account or by remittance of the shortfall. The EPFO contended that the pension is a contributory scheme and that the 2014 amendment (G.S.R. 609(E)) is valid, warning that allowing past practice to emplace pension on actual salary would erode the corpus and affect thousands of contributors. Paragraphs 21–23 of the reference order acknowledged the need to reconsider Sasikumar P. v. UOI (ILR 2019 Ker. 614) to the extent it struck down the 2014 amendment. The court noted the authority of RC Gupta and Pawan Hans and ultimately relied on Sunil Kumar B. (AIR 2022 SC 5634) to direct EPFO to reconsider entitlement for higher pension consistent with the Supreme Court’s directions. The Full Bench disposed the appeals accordingly, emphasizing actuarial valuation and central-government considerations.
The petitioner, R. Murukan, is the de facto complainant in Crime No. 91/2023 of Aruvikkara Police Station, who seeks interim custody of gold ornaments and other articles seized during investigation. The theft allegedly occurred at his residence in 2023, and some ornaments were recovered from CW18’s jewellery shop. After the final report, cognizance was taken in CC No. 493/2023 by JFMC-II, Nedumangad. The petitioner filed multiple CRL.M.C petitions seeking interim custody of the seized items; the Magistrate initially dismissed, and in Crl.M.C 5747/2023 this Court found the earlier finding of rival claimants to be incorrect because the claimants pertained to different articles. The Magistrate later again dismissed, holding that the properties were essential for the smooth conduct of the trial. The High Court cited Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat (2002) 10 SCC 283 to emphasize that valuable seized articles should not be retained unless essential for trial, and outlined the procedural safeguards under Section 451 Cr.P.C. It also relied on Suresh Serve V. State of Kerala (2020) 3 KLT 395 for additional conditions relating to jewellery. Finding retention would not aid the investigation, the Court set aside the impugned orders and directed interim custody to the petitioner under specific conditions: (i) a detailed panchnama; (ii) photographs signed by the petitioner and Investigating Officer; (iii) the petitioner shall produce the articles as required and shall not sell or transfer until trial. The case is thus disposed in the petitioner’s favor with conditions for custody and protection of the evidence.
BAIL APPL. NO. 540 OF 2024 This is a bail application under Section 438 CrPC filed by Anoop K.K. @ Unni, accused in Crime No. 1/2024 of the Sreekandapuram Excise Range Office, Kannur, for alleged offences under Sections 8(1) and 8(2) of the Abkari Act. The prosecution claims 2.5 litres of country-made liquor were seized from the accused’s residence, indicating involvement in sale of contraband; custodial interrogation is urged to continue the investigation. The petitioner contends innocence and false implication, asserting there is no material showing possession of the contraband and that pre-arrest bail is warranted. The Public Prosecutor opposes bail, stressing the nascent stage of investigation and invoking Section 41A of the Abkari Act to justify continued custodial measures. The court anchors its reasoning in Supreme Court pronouncements: Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, emphasizing that anticipatory bail guidelines must remain flexible and case-specific; the Sibbia Constitution Bench decision’s admonition to exercise Section 438 discretion with wisdom and care; and Jai Prakash Singh v. State of Bihar, noting that pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary privilege to be granted only in exceptional circumstances. After weighing materials and submissions, the judge holds no exceptional grounds for bail and dismisses the application, while offering a conditional route: if the petitioner surrenders within 10 days, he shall be interrogated and may renew the bail application on merits.
BAIL APPL. NO. 1719 OF 2024 This Kerala High Court bail order concerns BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1719 OF 2024 filed by accused 2, 4 and 5 in Crime No. 174/2024 of the Vadakkancherry Police Station, Palakkad, under sections 341, 323, 324 and 308 r/w 34 IPC. The petitioners were arrested on 22.02.2024. The prosecution’s case is that on 10.02.2024, around 21.00 hours, the defacto-complainant was confronted by the accused in furtherance of their common intention; the first accused broke a beer bottle and attempted to stab him. The complainant evaded the attack but sustained an injury to his right thumb; accused 2 to 6 allegedly tried to assault him; the first accused struck him with a flower pot and accused 3 to 5 used their hands. The petitioners contend innocence and that Section 308 IPC has been invoked to deny bail, arguing the wound certificate shows no grievous injury and that they have been in custody since 22.02.2024 with the investigation practically complete and recoveries effected. The Public Prosecutor opposes bail, noting overt acts and possibility of interference with the investigation, though she concedes near completion of investigation. The court relies on Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. and State of Kerala v. Raneef to emphasize presumption of innocence, the general rule of bail, and protection against indefinite detention. On considering the materials, the court prima facie finds the 308 charge not attracted, grants bail, and imposes conditions including bond of Rs.50,000 with two sureties, weekly appearances, no tampering with witnesses, no new offences, passport surrender, and potential modification of conditions as per law (citing Sushila Aggarwal).
