Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE27H DAY OF MARCH20146TH CHAITHRA, 1936 Bail Appl..No. 2032 of 2014 () ------------------------------- CRIME NO. 1939/2013 OF PATHANAMTHITTA POLICE STATION , PATHANAMTITTA PETITIONER/ACCUSED: ------------------------- VISHNU,AGED19YEARS, S/O.SURESH, VISHNU VILLA KUMBAZHA, PATHANAMTHITTA BY ADVS.SRI.S.RAJEEV SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT/STATE: ------------------------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031 (CRIME NO.1939/2013 OF PATHANAMTHITTA POLICE STATION PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT).
2. STATION HOUSE OFFICER PATHANAMTHITTA POLICE STATION PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT (CRIME NO.1939/2013 OF PATHANAMTHITTA POLICE STATION). BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.S.SREEJITH THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON2703-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: dlk THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J --------------------------------------- B.A.No.2032 of 2014 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of March, 2014 ORDER
Petitioner is the second accused in Crime No.1939 of 2013 of the Pathanamthitta Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324 and 307 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, apprehends arrest and has filed the application.
2. Application is opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor. It is submitted that on 31.12.2013 at about 10.00 p.m., the petitioner and the first accused attacked Asokan who was riding a motor cycle.
3. The learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner was travelling in an autorickshaw driven by the first accused and there was a collision between that autorickshaw and the motor cycle. The petitioner was not aware that the first accused had a knife with him. It is submitted that it is the first accused who inflicted injury on the de facto complainant with knife. It is also submitted that in such a situation, Section 34 of the Penal Code cannot be applied to the petitioner so far as the offences under Sections 324 and 307 are concerned.
4. Having regard to the relevant circumstances, I am inclined to think that custody of the petitioner is not required B.A.No.2032 of 2014 2 since no recovery is to be effected at his instance. Hence I am inclined to grant relief to the petitioner but subject to conditions. Application is allowed as under: (i) Petitioner shall surrender before the Officer investigating Crime No.1939 of 2013 of the Pathanamthitta Police Station on 03.04.2014 at 10 a.m for interrogation. (ii) In case interrogation is not completed that day, it is open to the officer concerned to direct presence of the petitioner on other day/days and time as may be specified by him which the petitioner shall comply. (iii) Petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation of the case. (iv) In case arrest of petitioner is recorded, he shall be produced before the jurisdictional magistrate the same day. (v) On such production, the petitioner shall be released on bail (if not required to be detained otherwise) on his 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: (a) One of the sureties shall be a close relative of the B.A.No.2032 of 2014 3 petitioner. (b) Petitioner shall report to the officer investigating the case on every Saturday between 10.00 a.m and 12.00 p.m for a period of two months or until filing of the final report whichever is earlier. (c) Petitioner shall report to the officer investigating the case as and when required for interrogation. (d) Petitioner shall not get involved in any offence during the period of this bail. (e) Petitioner shall not intimidate or influence the witnesses. (vi) It is made clear that in case any of condition Nos. (b) to (e) is violated, it is open to the Investigating Officer to seek cancellation of the bail granted hereby by moving application before the learned magistrate (until committal of the case if any, and thereafter, before the learned Principal Sessions Judge concerned) as held in P.K. Shaji V. State of Kerala (AIR2006 Supreme Court 100). THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. AS