Kerala High Court
Vijayan C.I @ Jinu vs State Of Kerala on 25 January, 2016
Author: Sunil Thomas
Bench: Sunil Thomas
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS
MONDAY, THE 25TH DAYOF JANUARY 2016/5TH MAGHA, 1937
Bail Appl..No. 423 of 2016
----------------------------------------
CRIME NO. 1548/2015 OF KANJIRAPPALLY POLICE STATION,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT
--------------------
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED :
----------------------------------------
VIJAYAN C.I @ JINU, AGED 44 YEARS,
S/O.ISSAC ANDREWS, CHERUKUNNEL HOUSE, PARATHODU,
MUNDAKKAYAM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.M.V.THAMBAN
SRI.R.REJI
SMT.THARA THAMBAN
SRI.B.BIPIN
RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT :
----------------------------------------------------
STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM,
REPRESENTING THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
KANJIRAPPALLY POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.T.Y.LALIZA
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 25-01-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
Msd.
SUNIL THOMAS, J.
-------------------------------------------
B. A. No. 423 of 2016
-------------------------------------------
Dated this the 25th day of January, 2016
O R D E R
The petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.1548/2015 of Kanjirappally Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 294(b) and 427 of the IPC and Section 3(ii)(e) of PDPP Act.
2. The allegation of the prosecution is that, on 25.12.2015, he pelted stones at a low floor bus of the KSRTC, which broke the front glass of the vehicle. The loss was quantified at Rs.30,000/-. Consequently, there was a cancellation of the trip, resulting in a loss of Rs.14,000/-. On the basis of the complaint lodged, crime was registered. Apprehending arrest, the petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail.
3. Heard and examined the records.
4. Essentially, the allegation against the petitioner is that, it was done by him due to previous enmity. The allegation is to be established on the basis of the oral testimony of the defacto complainant and the eye witnesses and one of the crucial element of it is the identification of the accused.
However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of B. A. No. 423 of 2016 2 the case, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner subject to the following conditions:
(i) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigation Officer within 10 days from today and shall undergo interrogation. After interrogation and after he being shown to the concerned eye witnesses for confirmation regarding his identity, he shall be released on bail, on he executing a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/-
(Rupees fifty thousand only) with two sureties for the like sum each.
(ii) He shall also deposit a sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand only) before the jurisdictional Magistrate Court within a period of 15 days from today. It is made clear that, though the remittance of the amount before the Court below shall be an essential condition for executing bond, it need not be deposited simultaneous with execution of the bond and need only be deposited within 15 days. In the event of the amount not B. A. No. 423 of 2016 3 remitted in the Court as above, it can be deemed that this bail order is non est.
(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.
Sd/-
SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE.
/true copy/ P. A. to Judge Pn