Liju Punnoose Vs. State of Kerala - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1119451
CourtKerala High Court
Decided OnJan-10-2014
JudgeHONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH
AppellantLiju Punnoose
RespondentState of Kerala
Excerpt:
in the high court of kerala at ernakulam present: the honourable mr.justice thomas p.joseph friday,the10h day of january201420th pousha, 1935 bail appl..no. 101 of 2014 () --------------------------------------- (crime no. 1520/2013 of ranni police station , pathanamtitta) ................... petitioner/2nd accused: ---------------------------------------- liju punnoose, aged36years, s/o k.t.punnoose, kallikattil, karikulam p.o., ranny. by advs.sri.philip j.vettickattu sri.b.premnath (e) respondent: --------------------- state of kerala, rep.by the s.i. of police, ranny police station, pathanamthitta, through the public prosecutor, high court of kerala, ernakulam-682031. by public prosecutor sri. abdul khader this bail application having come up for admission on1001-2014, the court on the same day passed the following: vs thomas p. joseph, j.-------------------------------- bail appl. no.101 of 2014 -------------------------------------------- dated this the 10th day of january 2014 order petitioner is the 2nd accused in crime no.1520 of 2013 of the ranni police station for the offences punishable under secs.323, 324, 294(b), 307 and 506(ii) read with sec.34 of the indian penal code, apprehends arrest and has filed the application.2. learned public prosecutor has opposed the application. it is submitted that on 26.12.2013 at about 6.30 a.m., the 1st accused shot the defacto complainant with a pistol and the petitioner assaulted his driver on the neck with the handle of knife. when the defaco complainant was fleeing from the scene, the 1st accused again shot him twice with pistol. it is submitted that the knife is not recovered.3. learned counsel submits that the allegations are not true and that the defacto complainant and others attacked the 1st accused and the petitioner while they were going in a car even disregarding the order for police protection granted by this court as per judgment in bail appl. no.101 of 2014 2 w.p.c. no.9094 of 2013.4. so far as the 1st accused is concerned, this court granted relief as per order dated 09.01.2014 in b.a. no.72 of 2014 in view of the wound certificate and the medical opinion rendered with respect to the injuries allegedly suffered by defacto complainant and since the pistol and the empty cartridge cases were recovered. so far as the petitioner is concerned, the allegation is that he assaulted the driver of the defacto complainant with the handle of knife.5. having regard to the circumstances, i am inclined to issue the following directions.1. petitioner shall surrender before the officer investigating crime no.1520 of 2013 of the ranni police station on 16.01.2014 at 10.00 am for interrogation.2. in case interrogation of the petitioner is not completed that day, it is open to the investigating officer to direct presence of the petitioner on any other day/days and time which bail appl. no.101 of 2014 3 the petitioner shall comply.3. after interrogation, in case arrest of the petitioner is recorded, he shall be produced before the jurisdictional magistrate the same day.4. on such production learned magistrate shall release the petitioner ( if not required to be detained otherwise) on bail 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 petitioner. b) petitioner shall report to the investigating officer on every saturday between 10.00 am and 12.00 pm for a period of two months or until filing of the final report, whichever is earlier. bail appl. no.101 of 2014 4 c) petitioner shall report to the investigating officer as and when required for interrogation. d) petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation of the case. e) petitioner shall not get involved any offence during the period of this bail. f) petitioner shall not influence or intimidate the witnesses. g) in case any of the above conditions is violated, it is open to the investigating officer to file application before the learned magistrate (until committal if any, and thereafter before the learned principal sessions judge, concerned) for cancellation of the bail granted hereby, as held in p.k. shaji v. state of kerala (air2006sc100. sd/- thomas p. joseph judge ns
Judgment:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY,THE10H DAY OF JANUARY201420TH POUSHA, 1935 Bail Appl..No. 101 of 2014 () --------------------------------------- (CRIME NO. 1520/2013 OF RANNI POLICE STATION , PATHANAMTITTA) ................... PETITIONER/2ND ACCUSED: ---------------------------------------- LIJU PUNNOOSE, AGED36YEARS, S/O K.T.PUNNOOSE, KALLIKATTIL, KARIKULAM P.O., RANNY. BY ADVS.SRI.PHILIP J.VETTICKATTU SRI.B.PREMNATH (E) RESPONDENT: --------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE S.I. OF POLICE, RANNY POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. ABDUL KHADER THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON1001-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: vs THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J.

-------------------------------- Bail Appl. No.101 of 2014 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of January 2014 ORDER

Petitioner is the 2nd accused in Crime No.1520 of 2013 of the Ranni Police station for the offences punishable under Secs.323, 324, 294(b), 307 and 506(ii) read with Sec.34 of the Indian Penal Code, apprehends arrest and has filed the application.

2. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the application. It is submitted that on 26.12.2013 at about 6.30 a.m., the 1st accused shot the defacto complainant with a pistol and the petitioner assaulted his driver on the neck with the handle of knife. When the defaco complainant was fleeing from the scene, the 1st accused again shot him twice with pistol. It is submitted that the knife is not recovered.

3. Learned counsel submits that the allegations are not true and that the defacto complainant and others attacked the 1st accused and the petitioner while they were going in a car even disregarding the order for police protection granted by this Court as per judgment in Bail Appl. No.101 of 2014 2 W.P.C. No.9094 of 2013.

4. So far as the 1st accused is concerned, this Court granted relief as per order dated 09.01.2014 in B.A. No.72 of 2014 in view of the wound certificate and the medical opinion rendered with respect to the injuries allegedly suffered by defacto complainant and since the pistol and the empty cartridge cases were recovered. So far as the petitioner is concerned, the allegation is that he assaulted the driver of the defacto complainant with the handle of knife.

5. Having regard to the circumstances, I am inclined to issue the following directions.

1. Petitioner shall surrender before the officer investigating Crime No.1520 of 2013 of the Ranni Police station on 16.01.2014 at 10.00 am for interrogation.

2. In case interrogation of the petitioner is not completed that day, it is open to the investigating officer to direct presence of the petitioner on any other day/days and time which Bail Appl. No.101 of 2014 3 the petitioner shall comply.

3. After interrogation, in case arrest of the petitioner is recorded, he shall be produced before the jurisdictional magistrate the same day.

4. On such production learned magistrate shall release the petitioner ( if not required to be detained otherwise) on bail 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 petitioner. b) Petitioner shall report to the investigating officer on every Saturday between 10.00 am and 12.00 pm for a period of two months or until filing of the final report, whichever is earlier. Bail Appl. No.101 of 2014 4 c) Petitioner shall report to the investigating officer as and when required for interrogation. d) Petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation of the case. e) Petitioner shall not get involved any offence during the period of this bail. f) Petitioner shall not influence or intimidate the witnesses. g) In case any of the above conditions is violated, it is open to the investigating officer to file application before the learned magistrate (until committal if any, and thereafter before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, concerned) for cancellation of the bail granted hereby, as held in P.K. Shaji V. State of Kerala (AIR2006SC100. Sd/- THOMAS P. JOSEPH JUDGE NS