Kerala High Court
Babu.N.K vs State Of Kerala on 9 August, 2017
Author: Sunil Thomas
Bench: Sunil Thomas
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS
WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF AUGUST 2017/18TH SRAVANA, 1939
Bail Appl..No. 5634 of 2017 ()
-------------------------------
CRIME NO.762/2017 OF NJARAKKAL POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM.
......
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
-------------------
BABU.N.K, S/O.KUNJAPPAN,
NIKATHITHARA HOUSE,
MALIPURAM BEACH, VYPIN,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.A.X.VARGHESE
SRI.A.V.JOJO
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
-----------------------
STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
NJARAKKAL POLICE STATION,
THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM - 682 031.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.SAJJU
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 09-08-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
mbr/
SUNIL THOMAS, J
-------------------------
B.A.No. 5634 of 2017
----------------------------------
Dated this the 9th day of August, 2017
O R D E R
The petitioner herein was arrested on 3.8.2017 in connection with Crime No.762/2017 of Njarakkal Police Station for offences punishable under sections 294(b) and 326 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. It was alleged by the defacto complainant that on 12.6.2017, the petitioner herein hit the defacto complainant with an oar. This was prevented by the defacto complainant by his forearm and he sustained a fracture of the forearm. Complaint was laid and crime was registered. The petitioner herein is in custody since then. He seeks bail.
3. It appears that the petitioner herein is a security employee of the Matsyafed Fish Farm. Even there are indications in the FIS that the defacto complainant was found fishing near the fish farm. It was objected by the petitioner herein. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, the defacto complainant was in B.A.No. 5634 of 2017 2 the habit of fishing inside the fish farm, which was objected by the petitioner being the security officer. Accordingly, he has a further case that on 12.6.2017, the defacto complainant had assaulted the petitioner herein and complaint was laid by him on the same day to his superior officer, who in turn submitted Annexure-A1 complaint to the SI of Police. Annexure-A2 is a further complaint to the CI of police by the manager of the Farm. It seems that after the arrest of the petitioner herein recovery was effected as evident from Annexure-A4 remand report. His earlier pre-arrest bail application was disposed of permitting him to surrender before the investigation officer and to be produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate. It appears that the court below remanded the petitioner herein. Having considered the entire facts, I feel that further custody of the petitioner herein may not be essential and bail can be granted to him on the following conditions:
(i) Petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of B.A.No. 5634 of 2017 3 Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand only) with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.
(ii) He shall appear before the investigating officer as and when called for.
(iii) He shall not threaten, coerce or intimidate the defacto complainant and the witnesses nor shall he interfere in the process of investigation.
(iv) He shall not get involved in any other identical offences.
Bail application is allowed as above.
Sd/-
SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE R.AV //True Copy// PA to Judge