Kerala High Court
Damodaran vs The Station House Officer on 10 February, 2020
Author: V Shircy
Bench: V Shircy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V.
MONDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 21ST MAGHA, 1941
Bail Appl..No.8934 OF 2019
CRIME NO.449/2019 OF Bekal Police Station, Kasargod
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 & 2:
1 DAMODARAN
AGED 43 YEARS,
S/O. KOTTAN, MELEKALLIYOT, KANJIRADUKKAM, P.O.
PERIYA, KASARAGOD-671 531.
2 PRAMOD C.V.
AGED 40 YEARS,
S/O. C.GOPALAN, UNNIYAMVELICHAN, NEELESHWAR,
MADIKKAI, KASARGOD-671 314.
BY ADV. SRI.SUNNY MATHEW
RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT/STATE:
1 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
BEKAL POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD DISTRICT-671 121.
2 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM COCHIN-682 031.
PP SREEJA V
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
10.02.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Bail Appl..No.8934 OF 2019
2
ORDER
Application for pre-arrest bail.
2. The petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.449/2019 of Bekal Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 427 and 452 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The prosecution allegation is that on 28.11.2019 at about 9.40 P.M, the petitioners trespassed into the bakery owned by the defacto complainant and caused damages to the tune of Rs.15 lakhs by breaking the glass panels and the other items in the bakery, which arose due to the demand for money, by the defacto complainant for the food supplied to them. Thereby they have committed the aforesaid offences.
4. Heard both sides.
5. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, they have gone to the bakery to take food. But the food supplied to them was of low quality. When they questioned him, there arose some dispute between them and they have been falsely implicated in the case by the defacto complainant. Bail Appl..No.8934 OF 2019 3
6. The learned Public Prosecutor has pointed out that there are so many criminal cases registered against these petitioners and moreover the investigation of the case is only in the preliminary stage.
7. On hearing the submissions made by both sides, I find that custodial interrogation of these petitioners may not be required to proceed with the investigation of the case. Hence, I think that this application can be disposed of directing the petitioners to surrender before the Investigating Officer on 13.02.2020 at about 10.30 A.M, upon such surrender, they shall be released on bail, after interrogation subject to the following conditions:
(i) The petitioners shall be released on bail on executing a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/-
(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each with two solvent sureties for the like sum each in the event of arrest by the police in connection with the above crime.
(ii) They shall appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation as and when required by Bail Appl..No.8934 OF 2019 4 him, in writing. They shall co-operate with the investigation of the case.
(iii) They 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 from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
(iv) They shall not commit any offence while on bail.
In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the learned Magistrate is empowered to cancel the bail in accordance with the law.
Sd/-
SHIRCY V. JUDGE mpm