Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN MONDAY, THE28H DAY OF OCTOBER20136TH KARTHIKA, 1935 Bail Appl..No. 6802 of 2013 () ------------------------------- LP.54/2012 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MATGISTRATE COURT - II, KOTTARAKKARA CRIME NO. 121/2008 OF KADAKKAL POLICE STATION, KOLLAM ---------------- PETITIONER/ACCUSED : ------------------------------------ SREEDATH, AGED47YEARS S/O.THANKAPPAN, PUTHUVAL PUTHEN VEEDU, ALINERA ALINERA WARD, AYIRUPPARA VILLAGE, KATTAYIKONAM THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.VARGHESE RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT : ---------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. P. MAYA THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON2810-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Mn P.BHAVADASAN, J.
--------------------------------------- Bail Application No.6802 OF2013--------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of October, 2013. ORDER
The petitioner stands accused of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 452, 323, 324 and 308 of Indian Penal Code. The incident which gave rise to the case is alleged to have occurred on 01.03.2008 at about 19.30 hours. The petitioner is alleged to have trespassed into the house of de facto complainant, who is his mother-in-law, and attacked her with dangerous weapons. Ever since the act committed by him, it is alleged that he is absconding and committal proceedings were initiated and later he was apprehended and was remanded to judicial custody.
2. The petitioner points out that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated. At any rate, it is pointed out that he has been in custody from 22.08.2013 onwards and it is unlikely that the trial of the case be conducted in the near future. Considering the nature of the allegations, the petitioner points out that his B.A. No.6802/2013 2 continued custody is unjustified and unwarranted.
3. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the petition. She only pointed out that considerable difficulties have been caused during investigation as the petitioner was absconding, and if released on bail, the petitioner may abscond again.
4. This Court is given to understand that the case was committed to Sessions Court concerned which is now transferred to Assistant Sessions Court, Kottarakkara for trial and disposal. That court seems to be a heavy court and it is unlikely that the trial of the case be conducted in the near future. There seems to be some force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that considering the nature of the allegations, the continued custody of the petitioner may not be justified. After having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, it is felt that the continued custody of the petitioner is unnecessary. Therefore, the application is allowed on the following conditions: i) The petitioner shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) with two solvent sureties for the like B.A. No.6802/2013 3 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 produced by him. iii) The petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer on every Wednesday between 9 a.m and 10 a.m until further orders. iv) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly get in touch with the victim. v) The petitioner shall not tamper or attempt to tamper with the evidence or influence or try to influence the witness. vi) 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. Sd/- P.BHAVADASAN JUDGE smp // True Copy // P.A. to Judge.