Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN THURSDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY 2013 11TH MAGHA 193 Bail Appl..No. 586 of 2013 () ------------------------------------------ CRIME NO. 36/2013 OF ANCHALUMMOODU POLICE STATION , KOLLAM ..... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- 1. SIVA KUMAR,AGED 3 YEARS, S/O.NIRMALA, KIZHAKEVILA, NIRAVILMURI, THRIKADAVOOR, PANDAYAL, KOLLAM 2 NIRMALA, AGED 6 YEARS, KIZHAKEVILA, NIRAVILMURI, THRIKADAVOOR PANDAYAL, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.V.A.AJIVAS RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBHLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. (THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ACHALUMOODU STATION, KOLLAM). BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.S.SREEJITH THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31-01-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss P. BHAVADASAN, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A. No. 586 of 2013 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 31st day of January, 2013. ORDER Petitioners stand accused of having committed offences punishable under Sections 448, 324 and 323 I.P.C. and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
2. The allegation against the petitioners is that on the date of the incident they attacked the defacto complainant and caused injuries to him using dangerous weapons.
3. The petitioners would say that they are innocent and they have been falsely implicated. They would also say that they have not committed any act as alleged.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that the second petitioner is no longer an accused in the crime and a report to that effect has been filed before the court on B.A.586/2013”
8. 1.2013. Therefore, this application does not survive as far as the second petitioner is concerned.
5. As far as the first petitioner is concerned, after having perused records especially the wound certificate, it is felt that there is some substance in the claim of the first petitioner that he is innocent. A deeper probe into the veracity of the allegations is not warranted at this point of time. Taking note of the circumstances as could be gathered from the records, the nature of the allegations etc., it is felt that this is a fit case where the extraordinary jurisdiction needs to be exercised in favour of the first petitioner. Therefore, this application is allowed on the following conditions: i) The first petitioner shall surrender before the Investigating Officer on or before 7.2.2013, who, after interrogation shall produce him before the JFCM court concerned, which court, on application for bail being moved by the first B.A.586/2013. 3 petitioner, shall release him on bail on his 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 may ensure the identity of the sureties and the veracity of the tax receipts produced by the sureties for the purpose of executing the bond. iii) The first petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer every Thursday between 9 a.m. and 10 a.m. till final report is laid. iv) The first petitioner shall not tamper or attempt to tamper with the evidence or influence or try to influence the witnesses. B.A.586/2013. 4 v) If any condition is violated, bail granted to the first petitioner shall stand cancelled, and the JFCM court concerned may take such steps as are available to him in law. P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sb.