Kerala High Court
Kottayam District) vs By Advs.Sri.Mvs.Namboothiry on 5 January, 2012
Author: M.Sasidharan Nambiar
Bench: M.Sasidharan Nambiar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
THURSDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF JANUARY 2012/15TH POUSHA 1933
BA.No. 10964 of 2011 ()
(CRIME NO.325/2011 OF THRIKODITHANAM POLICE STATION,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT)
.......
APPLICANT/4TH ACCUSED
A.G.SURESH KUMAR @ GOPU
AGED 23 YEARS
S/O.GOPI
ARAYANKALA PUTHENPARAMBIL
EDAKKAD BHAGOM
THRIKODITHANAM VILLAGE
CHANGANACHERRY TALUK.
BY ADVS.SRI.MVS.NAMBOOTHIRY
SRI. DEEPAK THOMAS
RESPONDENT(S)
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
ERNAKULAM.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.R.RENJITH
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
05-01-2012 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
svs
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J
..................................................
B.A.No.10964 of 2011
..................................................
Dated 5th January, 2012
ORDER
Petitioner is the 4th accused in Crime No.325 of 2011 of Thrikodithanam Police Station. The prosecution case is that at about 8 pm on 30.5.2011, S.I of police got information that four persons are engaged in a commotion at Peedikapadi of Thrikodithanam Village. It is alleged that on reaching the scene, S.I approached them and tried to disburse them, first accused kicked the hands of S.I and when the senior police official approached them, accused 2 and 3 wrongfully restrained him and first accused hit on his left side and also pushed him down and SI and the Constables arrested accused 1 to 3. It is alleged that the fourth accused was found running away and on questioning the other accused, it was revealed that there was an altercation of words between accused 1 to 3 on one side and fourth accused on the other side. The petitioner would ba 10964/2011 2 contend that though offences under Section 353, 332 and 294(b) read with Section 34 of IPC were alleged, it is not as against the petitioner but against accused 1 to 3. The Case Diary supports the submission. Learned Public Prosecutor also submitted that a final report has already been submitted. In such circumstances, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary. Petitioner is permitted to move the learned Magistrate for regular bail. In the nature of the case, I do not find any reason to believe that the learned Magistrate will not grant bail. Petition is disposed.
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE lgk