Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN THURSDAY, THE2D DAY OF JANUARY201412TH POUSHA, 1935 Bail Appl..No. 8300 of 2013 () ------------------------------- CRIME NO. 2150/2013 OF ADOOR POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTITTA ------ PETITIONER/ACCUSED : ------------------ SANTHOSH KUMAR, AGED32YEARS, VADAKKEKKARA PUTHEN VEEDU, MANNADI MURI, KADABANADU VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.AJITH MURALI RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: ---------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.P.MAYA THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON0201-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: BP P.BHAVADASAN, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A. No. 8300 of 2013 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 02nd day of January, 2014 ORDER
The petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No. 2150 of 2013 of Adoor Police Station who is alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Sections 447, 323 and 324 of IPC.
2. The allegation against the petitioner is that on the date of incident he trespassed into the house of the victim and assaulted him as well as his daughter. The daughter of the defacto complainant is none other than the wife of the petitioner herein. It would appear that the relationship between the petitioner and his wife have been strained and she was staying with her father. The petitioner is said to have assaulted the defacto complainant with an iron rod and caused injuries to the defacto complainant.
3. The petitioner would say that the allegations are totally false and are made with oblique motive. Since his B.A. No.8300/2013 -2- wife was staying away with him, he wanted to meet her and he claims that no incident as alleged are taken place and he has been falsely implicated.
4. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the petition and pointed out that the petitioner used an iron rod and caused injuries to the defacto complainant.
5. After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor and having perused the records, the claim of the petitioner that he is innocent cannot be countenanced. But the fact remains that the daughter of the defacto complainant is the wife of the petitioner. Probably, sending him to prison may result in further bitterness between the couple and that may endanger their marital life. Taking note of the said fact, it is felt that this is a fit case where extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court needs to be exercised in favour of the petitioner. B.A. No.8300/2013 -3- The petition is allowed as follows:
1. The petitioner shall surrender before the Investigating Officer on or before 09.01.2014, who, after interrogation, shall produce him before the JFCM court concerned, which court, on an application for bail being moved by the petitioner shall release him on bail on his executing a bond for a sum of `15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the said court. 2) The court shall ensure the identity of the sureties and the veracity of the tax receipts, before granting bail. 3) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer on every Wednesday between 9.00 am and 10.00 am until further orders. 4) The petitioner shall not tamper or attempt to tamper with the evidence and influence or try to B.A. No.8300/2013 -4- influence the witnesses. 5) If any of the conditions is violated, bail granted to the petitioner shall stand cancelled and the court concerned may take such steps as are available to it in accordance with law. P.BHAVADASAN JUDGE ds