Judgment:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN THURSDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY 2013 20TH POUSHA 193 Bail Appl..No. 9169 of 2012 () ------------------------------ CRIME NO.975/2012 OF KUMILY POLICE STATION, IDUKKI DISTRICT. ............... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 AND 2.-------------------------------------------------- 1. APPACHAN, AGED 5 YEARS, S/O JOSEPH, KOKKATTU VEEDU, MENONMEDU BHAGOM, CHAKKUPALLAM KARA, CHAKKUPPALLAM VILLAGE, IDUKKI DISTRICT.
2. SISILY, AGED 3 YEARS, D/O.PATHROSE, VETTUKATTIL, MENONMEDU KRISHIBHAVAN COLONY, CHAKKUPALLAM KARA, CHAKKUPALLAM VILLAGE, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN, SRI.K.S.PRAVEEN. RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTING SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KUMILY POLICE STATION. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.LALIZA T.Y. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10-01-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs. P.BHAVADASAN, J ----------------------------------------- B.A No.9169 of 2012 --------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of January, 2013 ORDER
The petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.975/2012 of Kumily Police Station for having committed offence punishable under Section 294(b), 324, 326 r/w 34 IPC.
2. The allegation against the petitioners is that on 7.10.2012 the petitioners attacked the defacto complainant using an iron rod and caused injuries to him.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out that the allegations are false and have been cooked up for the purpose of the case.
4. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the petition pointing out that the investigation is at the initial stage.
5. CD was made available for perusal. From the records it is seen that the defacto complainant admitted in the hospital on the next day of the incident and the wound certificate available from the records does not indicate any injury, which would attract Section 326 of IPC. It is also seen that the complaint has been laid after four days of the alleged incident. A deeper probe into the matter is unwarranted at this point of B.A No.9169 of 2012 :
2. time.
6. Suffice to say that, considering the facts and circumstances, it is felt that this is a fit case where extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court needs to be exercised in favour of the petitioners. Accordingly the petition is allowed as follows: i) The petitioners shall surrender before the Investigating Officer on or before 18.1.2013, who after interrogation shall produce them before the JFCM concerned and on applications for bail being moved by the petitioners, the learned Magistrate shall release the petitioners on bail on each of them executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the said Court. ii) The learned Magistrate shall ensure the identity of the sureties and also the veracity of the tax receipts before granting bail. Iii) The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer concerned for interrogation as and when required by him until further orders. iv) The petitioners shall not tamper or attempt to tamper with the evidence or influence or try to influence the witness. v) If any of the condition is violated, the bail granted shall stand cancelled and the JFCM concerned, on being satisfied of the said fact, may take such proceedings as are available to him in law. Sd/- P.BHAVADASAN Judge ab //True Copy//