Kerala High Court
Augustus Ceaser vs State Of Kerala on 1 November, 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.BABU
TUESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/10TH KARTHIKA, 1938
Bail Appl..No. 7331 of 2016
-------------------------------
CRIME NO. 1612/2016 OF THEKKUMBHAGOM POLICE STATION , KOLLAM
PETITIONER//1ST ACCUSED:
--------------------------
AUGUSTUS CEASER
AGED 37 EYARS, S/O VITUS,
KURISINKAL, VADAKKUMBHAGOM,
THEKKUMBHAGOM, KOLLAM DIST.
BY ADV. SRI.SUNNY ZACHARIAH
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------
STATE OF KERALA
REP. BY THE SUB ISNPECTOR OF POLICE,
THEKKUMBHAGOM POLICE STATION,
THEKKUMBHAGOM THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, KOCHI
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.K. PRASAD
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01-
11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
A.M.BABU, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
B.A.7331 of 2016
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated 1st November, 2016
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
ORDER
1.Petitioner seeks bail in anticipation of his arrest. He is the accused in crime No.1612 of 2016 of Thekkumbhagom police station, Kollam. The offences alleged against him are those punishable under Sections 354, 447, 294(b) and 427 of the Indian Penal Code.
2.The prosecution case goes as under:
The petitioner has grudge against the de facto complainant. The former therefore trespassed into the premises of the latter with the intention to assault her. He uttered obscene words against her. She tried to record his actions in her mobile phone. He then pushed her on her shoulder. He destructed a bicycle kept in the premises.
BA.7331/16 2
3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in fact the petitioner was attacked and injured by some persons at the instance of the de facto complainant. The petitioner has a long story to narrate, but it is not necessary to go into it. I am shown the case diary by the learned Public Prosecutor. I have perused it. The prosecution has no case that the de facto complainant sustained any injury. On the other hand, the wound certificate pertaining to the petitioner shows that he sustained injuries.
4.Having read the case diary and having considered the relevant circumstances, I do not think detention of the petitioner is necessary for effective investigation. I therefore allow the application.
(i) In the event of arrest of the petitioner, he shall be released on bail after interrogation on his BA.7331/16 3 executing a bond for Rs.15,000/-
(Fifteen thousand only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum each.
(ii) The petitioner shall co- operate with the investigation. He shall make himself available for interrogation on demand by the Investigating Officer.
(iii) The petitioner shall not intimidate or attempt to influence any witness.
(iv) The petitioner shall not destroy or tamper with evidence.
(v) In case of violation of any of the conditions referred to above, the learned Magistrate shall have competence to cancel the bail in accordance with law.
Sd/-
A.M.BABU Judge Mrcs/1.11.2016 //True copy// P.S to Judge