Kerala High Court
Jamal C.P vs State Of Kerala on 18 June, 2020
Author: Ashok Menon
Bench: Ashok Menon
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON
THURSDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF JUNE 2020 / 28TH JYAISHTA, 1942
Bail Appl..No.3541 OF 2020
CRIME NO.1570/2020 OF Thodupuzha Police Station , Idukki
PETITIONER/S:
JAMAL C.P
AGED 40 YEARS
S/O. PAREED, CHOZHAKUNNEL HOUSE, MADATHIKANDAM EAST
THODUPUZHA POST, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.V.VISAL AJAYAN
RESPONDENT/S:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI.AMJAD ALI SR.PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
18.06.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Bail Appl..No.3541 OF 2020
O R D E R
Dated this the 18th day of June 2020 Petitioner is the 2nd accused in Crime No.1570/2020 of Thodupuzha Police Station, Idukki for having allegedly committed offence punishable under Sections 323, 324, 326, 341, 427 r/w Section 34 of IPC. The prosecution case in brief is that on 31.05.2020, the petitioner in furtherance of common intention with other co-accused wrongfully restrained the de facto complainant and assaulted him with dangerous weapons like iron rod and also with stones and caused grievous injury to him. The petitioner contends that he is innocent and that actually he was the one who attacked by the de facto complainant and four others, in consequent to which Crime No.797/2020 registered at Aluva East Police Station for the offences under Sections 143, 148, 364, 343, 324, 427 r/w Section 149 of IPC. The petitioner has also produced wound certificate at Annexure A1 to substantiate the claim that he sustained injuries. The petitioner states that the de facto complainant was his friend and that owing to some dispute between them, which was sought to be Bail Appl..No.3541 OF 2020 settled, when the situation got violent and there was clash between both the gangs, as a result of which either sides sustained injuries.
2. The learned Public Prosecutor contends that the petitioner has antecedents and that he was involved in a criminal case for offence under Section 354 of IPC in the year 2012 and thereafter he was also involved in another case for offence under Section 397 IPC in the year 2019, and therefore, being a person with criminal antecedents, cannot be released on bail.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor and also perused the records available, I find that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is no longer necessary. He had surrendered before the Judicial Magistrate and has been in custody since 03.06.2020. Certain conditions can be imposed to see that the gangs do not quarrel and create disharmony in the locality and therefore, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail on execution of self bond for Rs.50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand only) before the Superintendent of the Jail, where he is detained, with an undertaking that he shall appear before the Jurisdictional court soon after release and execute bond for the aforesaid amount Bail Appl..No.3541 OF 2020 with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the court, on the following other conditions:
(i) He shall appear before the investigating officer on all Saturdays between 9 a.m. and 12 noon for a period of three months or till the filing of final report whichever is earlier.
(ii) He shall not tamper with evidence, intimidate or influence the witnesses .
(iii) He shall not get involved in similar offences during the currency of the bail.
(iv) He shall surrender his passport before the jurisdictional court and shall not go abroad without permission of the court. In case he does not have a passport, he shall file an affidavit to that effect.
In case of violation of any bail condition, the prosecution is at liberty to apply for cancellation of the bail before the jurisdictional court.
Sd/-
ASHOK MENON JUDGE rmm