IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN FRIDAY, THE10H DAYOF JANUARY201420TH POUSHA, 1935 Bail Appl..No. 85 of 2014 ----------------------------- CRIME NO. 433/2013 OF THIRUVALLAM POLICE STATION , THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ...... PETITIONER/ACCUSED: ------------------------------------- 1. ARUN KUMAR,AGED28YEARS, S/O.KARUNAKARAN, SREENANDANAM, KARUMKULAM, PUTHIYATHURA.P.O., POOVAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.
2. REGITH, AGED26YEARS, S/O.RAJAN, ERAPANAYIL VEEDU, ARAYALLOOR, THIRUMALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADVS.SRI.S.VINODKUMAR (VANCHIYOOR) SRI.A.G.ABHILASH RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, KOCHI-682 031.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, FORT POLICE SUB DIVISION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CITY-695 001.
3. THE SUB INSPECTOR, THIRUVALLAM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695 027. R1 TO R3 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.DHANESH MATHEW MANJOORAN THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON1001-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss P. BHAVADASAN, J.
--------------------------------------- B.A. No.85 of 2014 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of January, 2014. ORDER
Petitioners are the accused in Crime No.433 of 2013 of Thiruvallam Police Station, who are alleged to have committed offences punishable under Sections 294(b),354,379 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. The allegation against the petitioners is that they, being the employees of a Finance Company, from which finance facility was sought for by the son of the defacto complainant for hiring an autorikshaw, had gone to the house of the defacto complainant. It is alleged that they committed certain acts, which would constitute the offences made mention of.
3. The petitioners would say that they are totally innocent and have been falsely implicated with ulterior motive. They asserts that no such incident as alleged has happened. It is said that it is with the intention to escape from the repayment of the amount towards the loan taken by the person concerned that the present method has been adopted to trap the petitioners. The petitioners would say that they had not committed any act which would constitute an offence.
4. The learned Public Prosecutor only pointed out that the investigation is at the infant stage.
5. The fact that a loan has been availed by the defacto complainant is not in dispute. It is also not in much dispute that the payments are in arrears. It is in this context, that the petitioners have been implicated. Further, it is significant to notice that the complaint has been lodged long after the alleged incident, which also throws the suspicion against the version given by the defacto complainant. The allegation seems to be that the petitioners have gone to the house of the defacto complainant and alleged to have committed various acts. It is difficult to believe that they would have done so. At any rate, even assuming all the allegations are true, it is extremely difficult to believe how the offence under Section 354 IPC is attracted. Considering the nature of allegations, it is felt that this is a fit case where the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court needs to be exercised in favour of the petitioners. Therefore, this application is allowed on the following conditions: i) The petitioners shall surrender before the Investigating Officer on or before 20.01.2014 who, after interrogation, shall produce them before the Court concerned, which court, on application for bail being moved by the petitioners, shall release them on bail each of them executing a 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 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. 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 sp //True Copy// P.A. to Judge