Kerala High Court
Sucheendran @ Sucheendra Kumar vs State Of Kerala on 26 November, 2012
Author: P.Bhavadasan
Bench: P.Bhavadasan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN
MONDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2012/5TH AGRAHAYANA 1934
Bail Appl..No. 8742 of 2012 ()
------------------------------
(CRIME NO.1418/2012 OF KADAKKAL POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT)
.........
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED 1 TO 4:
----------------------------------------------------
1. SUCHEENDRAN @ SUCHEENDRA KUMAR,, AGED 35 YEARS,
S/O. PURUSHOTHAMAN, SUCHEENDRA VILASOM, MATHIRA,
THETTIMUKKU, MANKODE VILLAGE, KADAKKAL,
KOLLAM DISTRICT.
2. MANOJ @ MANOJ KUMAR,, AGED 33 YEARS,
S/O. PURUSHOTHAMAN, SUCHEENDRA VILASOM, MATHIRA,
THETTIMUKKU, MANKODE VILLAGE, KADAKKAL,
KOLLAM DISTRICT.
3. AZEEZ @ ABDUL AZEES, AGED 49 YEARS,
S/O. ALIYARU KUNJU, HASSAN MANZIL,
PUTHENVILA THETTIMUKKU, MATHIRA, MANKODE VILLAGE,
KADAKKAL, KOLLAM DISTRICT.
4. PURUSHAN @ PURUSHOTHAMAN, , AGED 68 YEARS,
S/O.PARAMUKURUPPU, SUCHEENDRA VILASOM, MATHIRA,
THETTIMUKKU, MANKODE VILLAGE, KADAKKAL,
KOLLAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.B.MOHANLAL
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT & STATE:
--------------------------------------------------------------
STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
KODAKKAL POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT,
THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.S.SREEJITH
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 26-11-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
Kss
P. BHAVADASAN, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
B.A. No. 8742 of 2012
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 26th day of November, 2012.
ORDER
Alleging that there was a property dispute between the petitioners and the defacto complainant and also complaining that though the incident had taken place on 4.11.2012 and the FIS has been lodged only on 9.11.2012 thereby having sufficient time to falsely implicate the petitioners to wreck vengeance, the petitioners seek pre-arrest bail.
2. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the petition by pointing out that as a result of the attack made by the petitioners, the defacto complainant suffered injuries for which initially first aid was given in a local hospital and thereafter referred to the Medical College Hospital and that may the reason for the delay in lodging the FIS.
3. After having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor and also B.A.8742/2012 .
2perusing the CD made available, it is difficult to believe the version of the petitioners that they have been falsely implicated. The wound certificate issued from the local hospital shows that due to severity of the injuries, the defacto complainant was referred to the Medical College Hospital. These facts explained to a great extent the delay in lodging the FIS. It is difficult to believe that the defacto complainant suffered injuries as a result of the fall. It is also difficult to believe as of now that the complainant would falsely implicate the petitioner and let the real culprits to escape. Whatever that be, a deeper probe is not warranted at this point of time. Suffice is to say that the nature of the acts committed by the petitioners, the weapons used by them, the injuries suffered by the defacto complainant and also the fact that the investigation is at an infant stage precludes this court from exercising the extraordinary jurisdiction in favour of the petitioners. B.A.8742/2012 .
3
This application is accordingly dismissed. However, if the petitioners are so advised, they may surrender before the Investigating Officer on or before 3.12.2012, who after interrogation, may produce the petitioners before the JFCM court concerned, which court on an applications for bail being moved by the petitioners, may dispose of the same in accordance with law, preferably on the date of production itself.
P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sb.