Kerala High Court
K.T.K Balakrishnan vs State Of Kerala on 13 January, 2014
Author: P. Bhavadasan
Bench: P.Bhavadasan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN
MONDAY,THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY 2014/23RD POUSHA, 1935
Bail Appl..No. 167 of 2014 ()
------------------------------
CRIME NO. 811/2013 OF NADAPURAM POLICE STATION , KOZHIKODE
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
---------------------------------
K.T.K BALAKRISHNAN, AGED 49 YEARS
SON OF KUMARAN, SAROVARAM, PURAMERI P.O.
VADAKARA VIA.
BY ADVS.SRI.M.P.SREEKRISHNAN
SMT.M.H.BINDU
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
-------------------------------------------
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM
REPRESENTING THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
NADAPURAM POLICE STATION - 682 031.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. P.V. ELIAS
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13-01-2014,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
sp
P. BHAVADASAN, J.
---------------------------------------
B.A. No.167 of 2014
---------------------------------------
Dated this the 13th day of January, 2014
O R D E R
The petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.811 of 2013 of Nadapuram Police Station, who is alleged to have committed offences punishable under Sections 341,294(b),506(1),354,353 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. In respect of a School of Kadathanattu Raja family, there was a partition suit as O.S.1 of 1964, in which a preliminary and final decree were passed. The management of the School is to be conducted by a committee and the Manager is the person, who is carrying out the decisions of the Managing Committee.
3. The defacto complainant, who is the Headmistress of the School, began to take decisions on her own, ignoring the Managing Committee and PTA, who is associated with the management of the School. That resulted the PTA complaining about the conduct of the defacto complainant and pointed out that she cannot do so without convening the PTA meeting.
4. The petitioner would say that agitated by the said conduct of B.A. No.167 of 2014 2 the PTA, the Headmistress filed Annexure A1 complaint raising false allegations and it is further pointed out that even assuming all the allegations are true, the offences made mention of there cannot be attracted.
5. The learned Public Prosecutor only pointed out that the investigation is at an infant stage.
6. After having the heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Public Prosecutor and also after having perused the records, there seems to be considerable force in the submission made by the Senior Counsel. It may not be proper at this stage to go into the veracity of allegations or the truthfulness of the case of the 1st petitioner. But the fact remains that even assuming all the allegations are true as rightly pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel, it is difficult to understand how the offence under Section 354 is attracted. There seems to be considerable force in the submission that the said Section has been incorporated only to see that the petitioner is denied bail.
After having considered the facts and circumstances of the B.A. No.167 of 2014 3 case and taking note of the 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 petitioner.
Therefore, this application is allowed on the following conditions:
i) The petitioner shall surrender before the Investigating Officer on or before 22.01.2014 who, after interrogation, shall produce him before the Court concerned, which court, on application for bail being moved by the petitioner, shall release him on bail on his executing bond for a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) 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 him.
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 B.A. No.167 of 2014 4 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.
P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sp