Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN MONDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY 2013 1ST MAGHA 193 Bail Appl..No. 275 of 2013 () -------------------------------------- CRIME NO. 413/2012 OF OONNUKAL POLICE STATION , ERNAKULAM ...... PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED : -------------------------------------- CARRIES, AGED 3 YEARS S/O. VISWAMBARAN,THOZHUTHINGAL HOUSE NERIAMANGALAM P.O.,CHEMBANKUZHI,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.S.DILEEP (KALLAR) RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT / STATE -------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.LALIZA T.Y. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21-01-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss P.BHAVADASAN, J ----------------------------------------- B.A No.275 of 2013 --------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of January, 2013 ORDER
On the allegation that the petitioner being an employee of the defacto complainant and that the defacto complainant had entrusted the petitioner with a vehicle for the official duty and that the same had not been returned inspite of repeated demands, a complaint was laid. On the basis of the said complaint crime No.413/2012 of Oonnukal Police Station was registered for the offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner.
2. The petitioner would say that the vehicle given to the petitioner as an employee may not be quite correct and they were the partners. Certain disputes arose between them and Annexure A1 is the compromise settlement deed entered between the parties. A reading of Annexure A1, according to the petitioner will reveal that the allegations are totally false.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner stressed on Anneuxre A1 and pointed out that the contents of Annexure A1 is B.A No.275 of 2013 :
2. sufficient to show that the allegations are not true and in fact the vehicle was handed over by the defacto complainant.
4. After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor and after having perused the CD, it seems that there is some substances in the complaint made by the petitioner.
5. Considering the facts and circumstances, it is felt that it is this is a fit case where extraordinary jurisdiction needs to be exercised in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly, the petition is allowed as follows: i) The petitioner shall surrender before the Investigating Officer on or before 31.1.2013, who after interrogation shall produce him before the JFCM concerned and on an application for bail being moved by the petitioner, the learned Magistrate shall release the petitioner on bail on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen 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 petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer on every Thursday until further orders. B.A No.275 of 2013 :
3. iv) The petitioner 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. P.BHAVADASAN Judge ab