Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN MONDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2012 10TH POUSHA 193 Bail Appl..No. 9514 of 2012 () ------------------------------ (CRIME NO.835/2012 OF NILESHWAR POLICE STATION,KASARAGOD DISTRICT) ....... PETITIONER: --------------------- SATHEESH.P, AGED 3 YEARS, S/O.RAGHAVAN, ANANTHANPALLA, OZHINHAVALAPPU.P.O., HOSDURG TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.A.ARUNKUMAR RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT AND STATE: ------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
2. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, (CRIME NO.835/2012 OF NILESHWAR POLICE STATION) KASARAGOD DISTRICT-671 314. R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.S.SREEJITH THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31-12-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss P.BHAVADASAN, J ----------------------------------------- B.A No.9514 of 2012 --------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 31st day of December, 2012 ORDER
Petitioner is the 25th accused in Crime No.835/2012 of Nileswaram Police Station, Kasargod District, who is alleged to have committed offences punishable under Sections 143, 145, 147, 148, 341, 353, 332 r/w 149 of IPC.
2. Allegation is that on 8.11.2012 at 9 p.m., when the police officer has gone to rescue one S.I. of Police, who was detained near a housing colony, the petitioner and the co- accused detained the police officer and disrupted him from discharging his official duties.
3. The petitioner would say that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated with oblique motive and he has not committed any act as alleged. According to the petitioner, a different version of the incident is given by the prosecution.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the petition pointing out that the claim of the petitioner that he is innocent cannot be accepted and there occurred a destruction to the tune of Rs.25,000/- due to the acts of the petitioner.
5. After having heard the learned counsel for the B.A No.9514 of 2012 :
2. petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor and after having perused the records and also given anxious consideration to the submissions on both sides, it is felt that this is a fit case where extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court needs to be exercised in favour of the petitioner. The petition is allowed as follows:
1) The petitioner may surrender before the court concerned on or before 9.1.2013 with due notice to APP, and the court, on application being moved by the petitioner, shall release him on bail on his executing a bond for Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the court concerned.
2) The court shall ensure the identity of the sureties and the veracity of the tax receipts, before granting bail.
3) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation as and when required by him.
4) The petitioner shall not tamper or attempt to tamper with the evidence and influence or try to influence the witnesses.
5) If any of the condition is violated, the bail granted shall stand cancelled and the court concerned, of being satisfied of the said fact, may take such proceedings as are available in law. P.BHAVADASAN Judge ab