Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN WEDNESDAY, THE1T DAY OF JANUARY201411TH POUSHA, 1935 Bail Appl..No. 8451 of 2013 () ------------------------------- CRIME NO. 2596/2013 OF WADAKKANCHERRY POLICE STATION ,PALAKKAD DISTRICT ------------------------------------------- APPLICANT/ACCUSED:- ------------------------------------- MANIKANDAN, AGED37YEARS, S/O.MANI, VADAKKENTHARA, KIZHAKKENCHERRY, ALATHUR, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.V.A.JOHNSON (VARIKKAPPALLIL) RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:- --------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM . BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.DHANESH MATHEW MANJOORAN THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON0101-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sts P.BHAVADASAN, J.
--------------------------------------- Bail Application No.8451 OF2013--------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of January, 2014. ORDER
The petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.2596/2013 of Vadakkencherry Police Station who is alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Sections 447, 341, 323, 324, 294(b), 354 and 506(I) IPC. The allegation against the petitioner is that on 21.11.2013 at about 7 p.m, he trespassed into the house of the de facto complainant and attacked him and when the wife of the de facto complainant came to his rescue, she too was attacked.
2. The petitioner would say that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated. According to him, the incident has not occurred as alleged. It is also pointed out that a counter case has been registered with regard to the same incident and the offences shown in the counter case are under Sections 341, 323, 324 IPC etc. The petitioner would say that he has not committed any act as alleged. B.A. No.8451/2013 2 3. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the petition and pointed out that the investigation has only just commenced.
4. After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Public Prosecutor and also after having perused the records, though it may not be possible to say that the petitioner is totally innocent, there seems to be some substance in the complaint that Section 354 IPC has been deliberately incorporated to see that the petitioner is denied bail. On going through the records, it is difficult to understand how Section 354 IPC is attracted. Whatever that be, considering the fact that there is a counter case also and that the incident might not have occurred as alleged, the application is allowed on the following conditions: i) The petitioner shall surrender before the Investigating Officer on or before 08.01.2014 who, after interrogation, shall produce him before the Court concerned, which court, on application for bail being moved by the petitioner, shall release him on bail on his executing bond for a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the Court concerned. B.A. No.8451/2013 3 ii) The Court concerned shall ensure the identity of the sureties and also the veracity of the tax receipts produced by them. 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 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. Sd/- P.BHAVADASAN JUDGE smp // True Copy // P.A. to Judge.