Kerala High Court
Sumesh @ Kannan vs State Of Kerala on 22 January, 2018
Author: V Raja Vijayaraghavan
Bench: V Raja Vijayaraghavan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
MONDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY 2018 / 2ND MAGHA, 1939
Bail Appl. No. 8871 of 2017
------------
CRIME NO.1283/2017 OF PERUMPETTY POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTITTA
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
SUMESH @ KANNAN, AGED 25,
S/O. ASHOK KUMAR,1/11,1ST CROSS STREET,
CHENNAI,TAMILNADU,PIN-600094,NOW RESIDING AT
C/O.OMANAKUTTAN,NIRUVALLIL HOUSE,EZHUMATTOOR.P.O,
BLOCK PADI,PERUMPETTY,PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.P.R.MADHUSUDANAN
SMT.K.HASEENA
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF KERALA,
THROUGH SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
PERUMBATTY POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. AJITH MURALI
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22-01-2018,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., J
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
B.A. No. 8871 of 2017
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 22nd day of January, 2018
ORDER
1.This petition is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2.The petitioner herein is the accused in Crime No.1283/2017 of the Perumbetty Police Station, registered alleging offences punishable under Sections 308, 325 and 506(1) of the Indian Penal Code.
3.The informant is one Omanayamma, who is aged about 60 years. According to her, the petitioner herein is the son of her husband's sister. Due to some dispute, between the petitioner and his parents, he has been residing with the informant and her family for the past 1 year. On 14.12.2017 at 12.30 AM, the petitioner is alleged to have entered her bed room and he is alleged to have made an attempt to suffocate her. She managed to push him off in the course of which she fell on the ground. The petitioner is alleged to have slapped on her face as well. As a result of the acts of the petitioner, the informant BA.8871/17 -:2:- is alleged to have lost two of her teeth. It is further alleged that the petitioner asked the informant whether she would assist him to do away with his mother. When she agreed, he is alleged to have let go of her. At this stage, she asked for water and the petitioner is alleged to have gone to the kitchen. At that time, the informant managed to make good her escape.
4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, referring to Annexure-A3 medical certificate, submitted that the petitioner is a graduate and is suffering from Pshycho Phobia, which is a mental disorder. The petitioner had been living with the informant for the past more than a year and on that particular day, the acts committed by him was under the influence of the mental disorder. The petitioner was made non compos mentis by his unusual sickness and he may be spared from custodial interrogation is the prayer.
5.The learned public prosecutor has opposed the prayer.
6.I have considered the submissions advanced and have gone through the materials on record.
BA.8871/17 -:3:-
7.It appears that on the date of incident the petitioner was under
the influence of the mental disorder that he was suffering from. The narration of events by the informant would substantiate the said fact. Having gone through Annexure-A3 medical certificate as well as the case dairy, it does not appear to me that this is a case wherein the custodial interrogation of the petitioner herein is required. Necessary conditions can be imposed to safeguard the interest of the prosecution.
8.In the result this application is allowed. However it shall be subject to the following conditions:-
i). The petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer within ten days from today and shall undergo interrogation. Thereafter, if he is proposed to be arrested, he shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum.
ii)The petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation and shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Saturdays between
9 a.m. and 11 a.m., for one month or till final report is filed, whichever is earlier.
iii)The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/ her from disclosing such facts to the BA.8871/17 -:4:- court or to any police officer.
iv)The petitioner shall not commit any similar offence while on bail.
v) If he surrenders before the court concerned, this order shall not be applicable and the jurisdictional court may pass appropriate orders.
In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the jurisdictional Court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation, if any, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law.
Sd/-
Raja Vijayaraghavan V., Judge krj.22/1 //True copy// P.A. To Judge