Kerala High Court
Mr.Suresh F vs State Of Kerala on 21 October, 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.BABU
WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2016/30TH AGRAHAYANA, 1938
Bail Appl.No. 8198 of 2016 ()
-------------------------------
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMP 2802/2016 of DISTRICT & SESSIONS
COURT,KOLLAM DATED 21-10-2016
CRIME NO. 2264/2016 OF KUNDARA POLICE STATION , KOLLAM
PETITIONER(S)/1ST & 2ND ACCUSED:
-------------------------------
1. MR.SURESH F.
AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.FRANCIS,
RESIDING AT SHAJI VILASOM,
PADAPPAKKARA PO, PERAYAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT
2. MR. MIRANDA P
AGED 36 YEARS, S/O.PRAKASH,
RESIDING AT PUNNAVILA CHARUVIL,
PADAPPAKKARA PO, PERAYAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT
BY ADV. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR (KOLLAM)
RESPONDENT(S)/STATE:
--------------------
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
KUNDARA POLICE STATION THROUGH
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
R BY ADV.K.B.UDAYAKUMAR,PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21-12-2016,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
BA.NO.8198 OF 2016
APPENDIX
PETITIONERS EXHIBITS
ANNEXURE A1-TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE SECOND PETITIONER'S
MOTHER BEFORE THE KUNDARA POLICE STATION
ANNEXURE A2-TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CRMP 2802/2016 DT 21.10.2016 OF
THE HON'BLE DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT, KOLLAM
RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS
NIL
TRUE COPY
SKS P.A TO JUDGE
A.M.BABU, J.
..........................................
B.A.NO.8198 OF 2016
...........................................
Dated 21st day of December, 2016
ORDER
Petitioners seek anticipatory bail under Sec.438 of the Cr.P.C. They are accused 1 and 2 in Crime No.2264/2016 of the Kundara Police Station. The offences alleged against them are those punishable under Secs 294 (b), 324,326 and 341 of the IPC read with IPC 34 and under Sec.27 of the Arms Act.
2. The prosecution case goes as follows: The incident occurred at 9.45 p.m on 19.9.2016. The de facto complainant was proceeding to his house after his duty. The accused persons wrongfully restrained the de facto complainant. They abused him with filthy words. The second petitioner with an iron rod beat on the head of the de facto complainant which he prevented with his left hand. The third petitioner cut on the hand of the de facto complainant with a sword.
3. The petitioners narrate a different story. They say that at 8.30 p.m on 19.9.2016 the de facto complainant and his friends trespassed into the house of the second petitioner and brutally beaten his mother, used filthy words against her and outraged her modesty. It is also alleged that the neighbours saved his mother from further 2 B.A.NO.8198 OF 2016 attack.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. I have perused the case diary. A copy of the discharge summary from the Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram is shown to me by the learned Public Prosecutor. I have perused the wound certificate also. No injury corresponding to a cut with a sword is seen caused. There was fracture at the fifth metacarpal bone (left) of the de facto complainant. The version of the petitioners cannot be easily brushed aside. The police did not register case on Annex-A1 complaint. I have already granted an order of interim anticipatory bail to the petitioners on 17.12.2016. I do not see any reason why the said order should not be confirmed. The detention of the petitioner does not appear to be necessary for an effective investigation of the case. I am of the opinion that anticipatory bail can be granted.
In the result, the application is allowed. The petitioners shall be released on bail after interrogation on their executing bonds for Rs.30,000/- with two solvent sureties for the like sum each if they are arrested in connection with Crime No.2264/2016 3 B.A.NO.8198 OF 2016 of the Kundara Police Station. The petitioners shall co-operate with the investigation. They shall make themselves available for interrogation as and when required by the investigating officer. This particular condition shall be in force for a period of three months from the date of arrest or till the filing of the final report, whichever is earlier. The petitioners shall not intimidate or try to influence witnesses; nor shall they destroy evidence or tamper with it. The learned Magistrate having jurisdiction is hereby empowered to cancel the bail in the event of breach of any of the conditions insisted on for the grant of bail.
A.M.BABU Judge sks/21.12.2016 4 B.A.NO.8198 OF 2016