Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE6H DAY OF NOVEMBER201315TH KARTHIKA, 1935 Bail Appl..No. 7344 of 2013 () --------------------------------------- CRIME NO. 2067/2013 OF ERNAKULAM CENTRAL POLICE STATION , ERNAKULAM ..... PETITIONER:ACCUSED(S)/ --------------------------------------- SHAFEEK T., AGED40YEARS S/O.ABU, 2292 A, VALIYAVEETTIL HOUSE ERNAKULAM KOCHI-18. BY ADVS.SRI.I.DINESH MENON SRI.L.RAJESH NARAYAN RESPONDENT:COMPLAINANT(S)/ ------------------------------------------------ STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE CENTRAL POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM-682 031 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.SREEJITH THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON0611-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J --------------------------------------- B.A.No.7344 of 2013 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of November, 2013 ORDER
Petitioner is the first accused, in Crime No.2067 of 2013 of the Central Police Station, Ernakulam for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 353 r/w Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, apprehends arrest and has filed this application.
2. Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that there was a complaint regarding unauthorized construction on the 3rd floor of the building where the petitioner is running a restaurant, the Corporation authorities conducted enquiry and pursuant to that, Health Inspector inspected the restaurant on 10-10-2013. He directed closer of the restaurant within 24 hours but that was not complied. He again visited the place on 11-10-2013 in order to close down the restaurant but, the petitioner and others who formed unlawful assembly prevented him from discharging his official duty.
3. Learned counsel submitted that the allegations are not correct. According to him, the allegation was that tress work was done on the 3rd floor and a kitchen was installed there, without permission. An attempt was made to demolish B.A.No.7344 of 2013 2 the same on 10-10-2013. Immediately thereon the petitioner filed a writ petition in this Court and obtained an interim order against such demolition. The order was shown to the officials concerned but they disregarded it. Again there was an attempted to demolish the structure on 11-10-2013.
4. Having heard the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel, I am inclined to issue the following directions. a) The petitioner shall report to the officer investigating Crime No.2067 of 2013 of the Central Police Station, Ernakulam on 11-11-2013 at 10 a.m for interrogation. b) If interrogation of the petitioner is not completed that day, he shall appear before the officer investigating the case on the day/days and time directed by him which the petitioner shall comply. c) Petitioner shall co-operate with investigating of the case and provide all facilities to the investigating officer to prepare the relevant documents concerning the place of occurrence, etc. d) In case arrest of the petitioner is recorded, he shall be produced before the jurisdictional magistrate the same day. e) On such production, the petitioner shall be released on bail, if not required to be detained otherwise on his B.A.No.7344 of 2013 3 executing bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned magistrate and subject to the following conditions: i) One of the sureties shall be a close relative of the petitioner. ii) Petitioner shall report to the officer investigating the case on every Saturday between 10 a.m and 12 p.m for a period of two months until filing of the final report, whichever is earlier. iii) Petitioners shall report to the officer investigating the case as and when required for interrogation. iv) Petitioners shall co-operate with investigating of the case. v) In case any of the above conditions is violated, bail granted hereby is liable to be cancelled for which the investigating officer may move application before the learned magistrate as held in P.K.Shaji Vs. State of Kerala (AIR 2006 SC100. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE AS