Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON THURSDAY, THE 08TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 16TH ASWINA, 1942 CRIME NO.1103/2020 OF Sreekariyam Police Station , Thiruvananthapuram PETITIONER/ACCUSED: VISHNU AGED 27 YEARS S/O. G. CHANDRAKUMAR, RAMA BHAVAN, PANAYIL HOUSE, AYANIYARTHALA, POWDIKONAM P.O., ULIYAZHUTHURA -695587 BY ADV. SRI.SHAJIN S.HAMEED RESPONDENT/S: STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA -682031 BY SR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI.C.N.PRABHAKARAN THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.10.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ASHOK MENON(J) B.A.No.6093 of 2020 Dated this the 08th day of October, 2020
ORDER
APPLICATION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL The applicant is the first accused in Crime No. 1103/2020 of Sreekaryam Police Station, for having allegedly committed offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 427 and 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC and under Section 27 of the Arms Act.
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that due to the previous enmity
towards the defacto complainant, the applicant and the other co-accused reached the house of the de facto complainant, hurled abuses at him and his wife and thereafter committed mischief by striking the gate with an iron rod and a sword. They also intimidated the defacto complainant with those weapons. The applicant states that there is a political rivalry between him and the defacto complainant for the reason that the applicant had withdrawn from CPI(M) and is now a BJP sympathizer. It is because of that enmity, that
he has been implicated in the falsely foisted case. His name was got excluded from the Voter’s List with intent to deter him from exercising his right of franchise. He had only questioned the defacto complainant regarding the exclusion of his name from the Voter’s List. He did not commit any act of offence as alleged by the prosecution. He, therefore, prays that he may be released on anticipatory Bail.
3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicant and the learned Public Prosecutor. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application for Anticipatory Bail on the ground that the applicant is a person
having criminal antecedents. He is implicated as an accused in another crime for offence Punishable under Section 307 of the IPC and there is a possibility, that in case of granting bail he may get involved in similar offences.
4. After having heard both sides, I find that the only non-bailable
offence alleged is the offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act. Even though it is alleged that mischief was committed, the extent of loss sustained by the de facto complainant is not clarified. Custodial interrogation does not appear essential for investigation. The applicant is willing to co-operate with the investigation and he is entitled to be released on Anticipatory Bail.
5. In the result, the Bail Application is allowed and the applicant is
directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer within two weeks. In the event of his being arrested, after interrogation and recoveries, he shall be released on bail on the execution of a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties for the like amount each to the satisfaction of the investigating officer and on the following conditions:
(i) He shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called for and co-operate with the investigation.
(ii) He shall not tamper with evidence or intimidate or influence the witnesses.
(iii) He shall not get involved in any similar offence during the currency
of the bail. In case of breach of any of the above bail conditions, the prosecution is at liberty to approach the jurisdictional court for cancellation of the bail. Sd/- ASHOK MENON JUDGE avs