Kerala High Court
Thomas Varghese vs State Of Kerala Through on 27 May, 2014
Author: Thomas P. Joseph
Bench: Thomas P.Joseph
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH
TUESDAY,THE 27TH DAY OF MAY 2014/6TH JYAISHTA, 1936
Bail Appl..No. 3751 of 2014
---------------------------------------
PETITIONERS:
---------------------
1. THOMAS VARGHESE, AGED 87 YEARS,
S/O.VARGHESE, VALAYATH HOUSE, MANIMALA P.O.,
KARIKKATTOOR.
2. GEORGE THOMAS, AGED 45 YEARS,
S/O.THOMAS VARGHESE, DO-DO.
3. BIJU THOMAS, AGED 32 YEARS,
S/O.THOMAS VARGHESE, DO- DO.
BY ADV. SRI.K.R.SUNIL
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
--------------------------------------------
STATE OF KERALA THROUGH,
THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
MANIMALA POLICE STATION, MANIMALA,
REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.LALIZA
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 27-05-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Msd.
THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J.
--------------------------------
Bail Appl. No.3751 of 2014
--------------------------------------------
Dated this the 27th day of May 2014
O R D E R
Petitioners apprehend arrest by the Manimala Police in Crime No.349 of 2014 registered for the offences punishable under Sec.304 and 338 of the Indian Penal Codee and Secs.5 and 9B(1)(b) of the Explosives Substance Act.
2. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the application. It is submitted that only the 2nd petitioner is arrayed as accused in Crime No.349 of 2014. it is submitted that on 17.05.2014 at about 1.15 p.m., there was illegal quarrying in the property of the 2nd petitioner and in the course of that, a rock fell down and hit a worker from Tamilnadu and who succumbed to the injuries.
3. Learned counsel submitted that the allegations are not true. The 1st petitioner wanted to construct a house for the 3rd petitioner who is recently getting married and for that purpose, the property which Bail Appl. No.3751 of 2014 2 was uneven had to be leveled up. Levelling work was entrusted to Suresh hailing from Tamilnadu as per an agreement dated 04.12.2013. As per that agreement, it was the responsibility of the person who took the work to level the property. He had brought machines for levelling work. In the course of levelling , accidently, the rock fell down and hit the worker. It is also submitted that the 1st petitioner had given Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation to the family members of the deceased. Learned counsel has shown me an agreement said to be executed between the 1st petitioner and Suresh to whom the work was allegedly entrusted.
4. Having regard to the relevant circumstances, I am inclined to think that relief could be granted to the 2nd petitioner.
The application is disposed of as under.
1. Petitioners 1 and 3 cannot have any apprehension of arrest now in the light of submission made by the learned Public Prosecutor.
Bail Appl. No.3751 of 2014 3
2. The 2nd petitioner shall surrender before the officer investigating Crime No.349 of 2014 of the Manimala Police station on 03.06.2014 at 10.00 am for interrogation.
3. In case interrogation of the 2nd petitioner is not completed that day, it is open to the investigating officer to direct presence of the 2nd petitioner on any other day/days and time which the 2nd petitioner shall comply.
4. It is open to the 2nd petitioner to produce all the relevant records which are in his custody, control and possession before the investigating officer and having relevance to the matter under investigation.
5. In case arrest of the 2nd petitioner is recorded, he shall be produced before the jurisdictional magistrate the same day.
6. On such production learned magistrate shall release the 2nd petitioner on bail on his executing bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty Bail Appl. No.3751 of 2014 4 five thousand only) with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned magistrate and subject to the following conditions:
a) One of the sureties shall be a close relative of the 2nd petitioner.
b) The 2nd petitioner shall report to the investigating officer on every alternate Saturday between 10.00 am and 12.00 pm for a period of two months or until filing of the final report, whichever is earlier.
c) The 2nd petitioner shall report to the investigating officer as and when required for interrogation.
d) The 2nd petitioner shall not get involved any offence during the period of this bail.
e) The 2nd petitioner shall not intimidate or influence the witnesses.
f) In case any of condition nos.(b) to (e) is violated, it is open to the investigating officer Bail Appl. No.3751 of 2014 5 to file application before the learned magistrate (until committal if any, and thereafter before the learned Sessions Judge, concerned) for cancellation of the bail granted hereby, as held in P.K. Shaji V. State of Kerala (AIR 2006 SC 100).
Sd/-
THOMAS P. JOSEPH
JUDGE
/True Copy /
NS P.A. To Judge