Judgment:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE4H DAY OF JUNE201414TH JYAISHTA, 1936 BAIL APPL..NO. 2836 OF2014() -------------------------------------------- CRIME NO. 389/2014 OF PAYYANNUR POLICE STATION , KANNUR PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONERS/ACCUSED: ----------------------------------------------------------- 1. SAJEEVAN P.PAGED32YEARS S/O K.KUNHIRAMAN, KUNNARU PO. KARANTHAD VIA. RAMANTHALI KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN:670 308.
2. SANOOP K. AGED26YEARS S/O SATHYAN, KUNNARU PO. KARANTHAD VIA. RAMANTHALI KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN:670 308.
3. PRAVEEN K. AGED25YEARS S/O PADMANABHAN, MAYI VEEDU, KUNNARU PO. KARANTHAD VIA. RAMANTHALI KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN:670 308.
4. DHANARAJ C.V.AGED36YEARS S/O BALAKRISHNAN, KUNNARU PO. KARANTHAD VIA. RAMANTHALI KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN:670 308. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.AMARESAN RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN:682031. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI V.S. SREEJITH THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON0406.2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J.
==================================== B.A. No.2836 of 2014 ==================================== Dated this the 04th day of June, 2014 ORDER
Petitioners are accused in Crime No.389 of 2014 of the Payyannur Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 452, 323 and 427 read with Sec.34 of the Indian Penal Code, apprehend arrest and have filed this application.
2. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the application. It is submitted that on account of political rivalry on 10.04.2014 at 1.30 a.m the petitioners and others trespassed into the house of the de facto complainant, assaulted him with hand and destroyed the window glass, panels, etc., causing loss of Rs.50,000/-. It is also submitted that the 4th petitioner-4th accused is involved in six other cases.
3. Learned counsel submitted that the 1st petitioner surrendered, was arrested and released on bail. The 2nd petitioner was also released on bail.
4. So far petitioners 3 and 4 are concerned, learned counsel submitted that the allegations are not true and they are B.A. No. 2836 of 2014 -:
2. :- not involved in the incident. According to the learned counsel though the incident occurred on 10.04.2014 at 1.30 a.m, the first information statement regarding the alleged incident was given only on the next day at 3.30 p.m.
5. I have gone through the CD file. I find that window glass, panels, etc., of the house of the de facto complainant were damaged. The 4th petitioner is involved in other cases including for the offence under Sec.452 of the IPC. Hence request for pre- arrest bail made by the 4th petitioner-4th accused cannot be allowed. But I am inclined to grant relief to the 3rd petitioner-3rd accused but subject to conditions: Application is disposed of as under: (i) Application to the extent it concerned petitioners 1 and 2 have become infructuous. (ii) Request for pre-arrest bail made by the 4th petitioner- 4th accused is rejected. It is open to the 4th petitioner to approach the court concerned or surrender the Officer investigating the case. (iii) The 3rd petitioner/3rd accused shall surrender before the the Officer Investigating Crime No.389 of 2014 of the Payyannur Police Station on 11.06.2014 at 10.00 a.m for B.A. No. 2836 of 2014 -:
3. :- interrogation. (iv) If interrogation of the 3rd petitioner is not completed that day, he shall appear before the officer investigating the case on the day/days and time as directed by him which the 3rd petitioner shall comply. (v) In case arrest of the 3rd petitioner is recorded, he shall be produced before the jurisdictional magistrate the same day. (vi) On such production, the 3rd petitioner shall be released (if not required to be detained otherwise) on his executing bond for Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen 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 3rd petitioner. (b) The 3rd Petitioner shall deposit Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) in a Nationalized Bank of his choice initially for a period of two years (renewable as per order of the learned magistrate) and produce the Fixed Deposit Receipt before the learned magistrate while executing the bail bond. In case the case is decided against the 3rd petitioner and he is B.A. No. 2836 of 2014 -:
4. :- made liable to pay compensation, such compensation to the extent possible could be realized from the amount in deposit. (c) The 3rd petitioner shall report to the officer investigating the case ion on every alternate Saturday between 10.00 a.m and 12.00 p.m for a period of two months or until final report is filed, whichever is earlier. (d) The 3rd petitioner shall report to the officer investigating the case as and when required for interrogation. (e) The 3rd petitioner shall not get involved in any offence during the period of this bail. (f) The 3rd petitioner shall not intimidate or influence the witnesses. (vii) In case the 3rd petitioner violates any of conditions (c) to (f), it is open to the investigating Officer to move the learned magistrate for cancellation of the bail as held in P.K.Shaji v. State of Kerala (AIR2006SC100. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv