Kerala High Court
Sunil vs State Of Kerala on 10 June, 2014
Author: Thomas P. Joseph
Bench: Thomas P.Joseph
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH
TUESDAY,THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE 2014/20TH JYAISHTA, 1936
Bail Appl..No. 3846 of 2014 ()
-------------------------------
CRIME NO. 685/2014 OF PANDALAM POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA
-----------------------
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 AND 2 :
----------------------------------------------------------
1. SUNIL, AGED 19 YEARS
S/O.SURESH, PUTHENKOLLAKAROTE
ULANADU P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA - 689 503
2. NIKHIL ANANDHAN, AGED 17 YEARS
S/O.THULASI, PUTHUPARAMBIL THAZHETHIL
ULANADU P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA - 689 503
MINOR REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER THULASI.
BY ADVS.SRI.T.B.HOOD
SMT.M.ISHA
RESPONDENT/STATE :
-----------------------------------
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
PANDALAM POLICE STATION-689 501, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT
THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA
KOCHI-682 031
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. SREEJITH
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10-06-2014,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Mn
THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J.
--------------------------------
Bail Appl. No.3846 of 2014
--------------------------------------------
Dated this the 10th day of June 2014
O R D E R
Petitioners apprehend arrest by the Pandalam Police in Crime No.685 of 2014 for the offences punishable under Secs.452, 323, 324, 326 and 294(b) read with Sec.34 of the Indian Penal Code and have filed the application.
2. Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that on the day of incident, the petitioners trespassed into the house of the defacto complainant and attacked him with iron chair causing fractures.
3. Learned counsel has submitted that the 2nd petitioner is a juvenile. Annexure-A1 is produced to support that contention. It is also submitted that the petitioners are falsely implicated in this case.
4. Having regard to the relevant circumstances including that the iron chair (allegedly) used in the incident was collected from the scene of occurrence, I am inclined to Bail Appl. No.3846 of 2014 2 think that custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not required.
5. So far as the 2nd petitioner is concerned, it is initially for the investigating officer to look into whether he is a juvenile and thereafter for the Court/authority concerned to take final decision.
6. So far as the 1st petitioner is concerned, I am inclined to grant relief to him but subject to conditions including deposit of amount towards compensation if any payable to the defacto complainant.
The application is disposed of as under. I(i). Petitioners shall surrender before the officer investigating Crime No.685 of 2014 of Pandalam Police on 17.06.2014 at 10.00 am for interrogation.
I(ii). In case interrogation of the petitioners is not completed that day, it is open to the investigating officer to direct presence of the petitioners on any other day/days and time which Bail Appl. No.3846 of 2014 3 the petitioners shall comply.
I(iii). In case the 2nd petitioner is arrested, he shall be produced before the appropriate jurisdictional magistrate/Juvanile Justice Board as the case may be (bearing in mind the contention that he is a juvenile) on the same day.
I(iv). On such production learned magistrate/board shall release the 2nd petitioner on bail (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/Board as the case may be and subject to the following conditions:
a) The 2nd petitioner shall report to the investigating officer as and when required for interrogation.
b) The 2nd petitioner shall not get involved any offence during the period of this bail. Bail Appl. No.3846 of 2014 4
c) The 2nd petitioner shall not intimidate or influence the witnesses.
I(v) In case any of the above conditions is violated, it is open to the investigating officer to file application before the learned magistrate/ Board as the case may be for cancellation of the bail granted hereby, as held in P.K. Shji V. State of Kerala (AIR 2006 SC 100).
II(i). So far as the 1st petitioner is arrested he shall be produced before the jurisdictional magistrate the same day.
(II)(ii). On such production learned magistrate shall release the 1st petitioner on bail on his executing bond for Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned magistrate and subject to the following conditions:
a) The 1st petitioner shall deposit Rs.12,500/- Bail Appl. No.3846 of 2014 5
(Rupees twelve thousand five hundred only) in his name in a nationalised bank 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.
b) In case the case is decided against the 1st petitioner and he is made liable to pay compensation, such compensation to the extent possible could be realised from the amount in deposit.
c) The 1st petitioner shall report to the investigating officer as and when required for interrogation.
d) The 1st petitioner shall not get involved any offence during the period of this bail.
e) The 1st petitioner shall not intimidate or influence the witnesses.
(II)(iii) In case any of the above condition Bail Appl. No.3846 of 2014 6 nos.(c) to (e) is violated, it is open to the investigating officer to file application before the learned magistrate for cancellation of the bail granted hereby, as held in P.K. Shji V. State of Kerala (AIR 2006 SC 100).
THOMAS P. JOSEPH JUDGE NS