Pradeep vs State Of Kerala on 27 June, 2018

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Pradeep vs State Of Kerala on 27 June, 2018

Bench: V Raja Vijayaraghavan

        

 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                       PRESENT:

                 THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

             WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE 2018 / 6TH ASHADHA, 1940

                              Bail Appl..No. 4274 of 2018
                                   -----------
             CRIME NO. 1588/2014 OF ETTUMANOOR POLICE STATION , KOTTAYAM



PETITIONER/1ST ACCUSED:


     PRADEEP,
     AGED 48 YEARS, S/O. PAPPAN,
     AMRUTHA NIVAS, KAVUMPADOM
     COLONY, PEROOR VILLAGE,
     ETTUMANOOR, KOTTAYAM.

      BY ADV.SRI.K.REGHU KOTTAPPURAM


RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT:

1.   STATE OF KERALA,
     REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
     KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.

2.   THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
     (SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE), ETTUMANOOR POLICE STATION,
     ETTUMANOOR, KOTTAYAM - 686 631.

     BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. AMJAD ALI


    THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27-06-2018,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

               RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., J
            ==================
                    B.A. No. 4274 of 2018
            ==================
             Dated this the 27th day of June, 2018

                             ORDER

This application is filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.

2. The applicant herein is the 1 st accused in C.C. No.2030 of 2014 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class-I, Ettumanoor. He along with his wife are being proceeded against for having committed offence punishable under Section 341, 294(b) and 323 r/w. Sec. 34 of the IPC.

3. After being enlarged on bail by the learned Magistrate, the applicant and his wife failed to appear before the trial court. The bail bond was cancelled and coercive proceedings were initiated. The applicant was finally arrested on 12.6.2018. His application for bail was rejected by the learned Magistrate taking note of his act of abscondence.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that the offences are bailable. According to the learned counsel, the applicant and his wife were out of State in connection with his employment and his failure to appear before the court below was not wilful. Seeking indulgence, his wife has already approached this Court and have initiated proceedings. BA.4274/18 -:2:-

5. Opposing the prayer, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that no leniency is warranted. The trial was delayed due to the acts of the applicant and his wife and it is now idle to contend that they are not at fault.

6. I have considered the submissions advanced. The offences alleged are bailable. I am inclined to grant one more opportunity to the applicant to contest the proceedings in which he has been arrayed as the accused. It is not as if once bail is cancelled, applicant is not entitled to get bail thereafter. As provided under the proviso to Section 446A of the Code petitioner is entitled to seek bail in the manner stated therein. However, in order to ensure his presence, stringent conditions can be imposed.

7. In the result, this application will stand allowed. The applicant shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the court having jurisdiction. The above order shall be subject to the following conditions:

1). The applicant shall appear before the Investigating Officer on the first Saturday of every month between 10 a.m. and 11.00 a.m., until the trial is over.

BA.4274/18 -:3:-

2). He shall not intimidate or attempt to influence the witnesses; nor shall he tamper with the evidence. He shall not make any effort to contact the victim or her family members.

4). He shall not commit any offence while he is on bail.

5). He shall not leave India without the permission of the Court and if having passport, shall deposit the same before the Trial Court within a week; If release of the passport is required at a later period, he shall be at liberty to move appropriate application before the Court having jurisdiction.

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.27/6 //true copy// P.A to Judge

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Kerala High Court