Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN TUESDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF JULY 2013 8TH SRAVANA, 1935 Bail Appl..No. 5160 of 2013 () ------------------------------- CRIME NO. 282/2013 OF NALLALAM POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT ----------- PETITIONERS/ACCUSED : -------------------- 1. YOOSAF,AGED 3 YEARS, S/O.KOYAKUTTY, CHUNDIKKATTIL HAZHATH HOUSE, PALAZHI GURUVAYURAPPAN COLLEGE P.O, KOZHIKODE TALUK.
2. ASHRAF, AGED 3 YEARS,S/O.KOYAKUTTY, CHUNDIKKATHIL HAZHATH HOUSE PALAZHI GURUVAYURAPPAN COLLEGE P.O, KOZHIKODE TALUK.
3. BAVA @ ABDUL AZEEZ, AGED 4 YEARS, S/O.KOYAKKUTTY, KURUNGOTTUMMAL HOUSE, PUTHOORAMADAM PANTHEERANKAVU P.O, KOZHIKODE.
4. MUHAMMED, AGED 6 YEARS,S/O.KOYAKUTTY, KAIBLIPARAMBU HOUSE, PUTHOORAMADAM PANTHEERANKAVU, P.O, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE : ------------------------------ 1. SUB INBSPECTOR OF POLICE NALLALAM POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE 67 027.
2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM KOCHI 68 031. R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. DHANESH MATHEW MANJOORAN THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30-07-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: BP P.BHAVADASAN, J.
--------------------------------------- Bail Application No.5160 OF 201.--------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of July, 2013. ORDER
The petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 4 in Crime No.282/2013 of Nallalam Police Station who are alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 447, 323, 326 and 354 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code. The allegation against the petitioners is that on 10.06.2013 at about 1 p.m, while the de facto complainant was coming home, he was attacked by the accused persons causing injuries to him. It is also alleged that they tried to outrage the modesty of the wife of the de facto complainant.
2. The petitioners would say that the allegations are totally false and are made with ulterior motive. It is pointed out that there was a boundary dispute between the parties and in fact the de facto complainant had trespassed into a portion of the property belonging to the petitioners and laid foundation stone by putting up a boundary wall and there was exchange of words. The petitioners would also say that in fact the 3rd petitioner and B.A. No.5160/2013 2 his father were attacked and they were admitted in the hospital as could be seen from Annexures A and B documents produced by the petitioners. The petitioners further pointed out that the presence of the father is deliberately concealed by the de facto complainant and that would show that the incident is not as alleged against them.
3. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the petition and pointed out that as far as the 3rd petitioner is concerned, he is alleged to have used an iron rod causing serious injuries and he deserves no sympathy. It is also pointed out that the investigation is at an infant stage.
4. After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Public Prosecutor and also after having perused the records, there seems to be some force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Even though they could not be said to be totally innocent, there seems to be some doubt regarding the actual incident. However, the allegation against the 3rd petitioner is that he took up an iron rod and attacked the de facto complainant causing him serious B.A. No.5160/2013 3 injuries. Considering the nature of the allegations, it could not be said that the 3rd petitioner has committed the act in furtherance of the common intention of other persons. It is also significant to notice that there are eight accused persons and only four are named and they are the petitioners. While the act committed by the 3rd petitioner cannot be ignored, the offence attributed to other petitioners are minor. Considering the nature of the allegations against the petitioners, this petition is disposed of as follows: I The Application, as far as petitioners 1, 2 and 4 are concerned, is allowed on the following conditions: i) The petitioners 1, 2 and 4 shall surrender before the Investigating Officer on or before 07.08.2013 who, after interrogation, shall produce them before the Court concerned, which court, on application for bail being moved by them, shall release them on bail on their executing bond for a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) each with two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the Court concerned. ii) The Court concerned shall ensure the identity of the sureties and also the veracity of the tax receipts B.A. No.5160/2013 4 produced by them. iii) The petitioners 1, 2 and 4 shall report before the Investigating Officer on every Wednesday between 9 a.m and 10 a.m until further orders. iv) The petitioners 1, 2 and 4 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 Court concerned, on being satisfied of the said fact, may take such steps as are available to it in law. II The Application, as far as the 3rd petitioner is concerned, is dismissed. However, if the 3rd petitioner is so advised, he may surrender before the Investigating Officer on or before 07.08.2013 who, after interrogation, shall produce him before the Court concerned who, on an application of bail being moved by the 3rd petitioner, shall dispose of the same in accordance with law preferably on the same day. Sd/- P.BHAVADASAN JUDGE smp