Kerala High Court
Shameer vs State Of Kerala on 19 September, 2014
Author: A.Hariprasad
Bench: A.Hariprasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD
FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2014/28TH BHADRA, 1936
Bail Appl..No. 6812 of 2014 ()
-------------------------------
CRIME NO. 1094/2014 OF PANDALAM POLICE STATION,PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT
-----------------
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 3:
-----------------------------------------------------------
1. SHAMEER, AGED 21 YEARS,S/O.SHAJI,
SHITHA MANZIL, ULAMYIL KADACKADU,
PANDALAM, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.
2. AL-AMEEN, AGED 24 YEARS,
S/O.RASHEED, ELAYAMADATHIL PUTHU VEEDU,
ULAMAYIL KADACKADU, PANDALAM,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.
3. RENEESH AKHADER @ SHAMSU, AGED 28 YEARS,
S/O.ABDUL KHADER, ELAYAMADATHIL VEEDU, KADACKADU,
PANDALAM, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.SALIM V.S.
SRI.SHANAVAS.S
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
-------------------------------------------------
STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
PANDALAM POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT,
THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.S.SREEJITH
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 19-09-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
sts
A.HARIPRASAD, J.
------------------------------------------------
B.A.No.6812 of 2014
-------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 19th day of September, 2014
ORDER
Petitioners are accused Nos. 1 to 3 in Crime No.1094 of 2014 of the Pandalam Police Station registered for the offence punishable under Section 308 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
2. The prosecution case is that on 04.08.2014 the accused who are activists of NDF on account of previous enmity towards the de facto complainant, came armed with weapons on a motor cycle and attacked the de facto complainant, who is a worker of another party. It is also alleged that they used sword stick to cause injury to the victim.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the second accused is not involved in any case so far. It is also submitted that the 3rd accused is involved only in one offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. B.A.No.6812 of 2014 2
5. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. According to him, the first accused is involved in 3 other crimes. 3rd accused is a person involved in offences under Sections 323 and 153A of the Indian Penal Code. It is also submitted that 3rd accused is figuring in the Rowdy list.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances, I am of the view that Accused Nos. 1 and 3 (petitioners 1 and 3) are not entitled to get bail at this stage of investigation. However, bail is granted to the second accused which the following conditions:
(i) The second accused shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for `25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned magistrate.
(ii) The sureties shall produce documents to establish their identity and solvency.
(iii) The second accused shall report before the Investigating Officer on all Saturdays between 09.00 a.m. and 10.00 a.m. until final report is filed.
(iv) The second accused shall not intimidate or influence the witnesses or meddle with the investigation in any manner. B.A.No.6812 of 2014 3
(v) The second accused shall not indulge in any offence while on bail. In that event the learned magistrate is free to cancel the bail.
A.HARIPRASAD, JUDGE.
AS