Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. It appears that the petitioner herein is a security employee of the Matsyafed Fish Farm. Even there are indications in the FIS that the defacto complainant was found fishing near the fish farm. It was objected by the petitioner herein. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, the defacto complainant was in  the habit of fishing inside the fish farm, which was objected by the petitioner being the security officer. Accordingly, he has a further case that on 12.6.2017, the defacto complainant had assaulted the petitioner herein and complaint was laid by him on the same day to his superior officer, who in turn submitted Annexure-A1 complaint to the SI of Police. Annexure-A2 is a further complaint to the CI of police by the manager of the Farm. It seems that after the arrest of the petitioner herein recovery was effected as evident from Annexure-A4 remand report. His earlier pre-arrest bail application was disposed of permitting him to surrender before the investigation officer and to be produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate. It appears that the court below remanded the petitioner herein. Having considered the entire facts, I feel that further custody of the petitioner herein may not be essential and bail can be granted to him on the following conditions: