Sali @ Sanil Kumar v. State Of Kerala
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.KEMAL PASHA MONDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2015/27TH MAGHA, 1936 Bail Appl..No. 659 of 2015 ------------------------------------ CRIME NO. 397/2014 OF UPPUTHARA POLICE STATION , IDUKKI ------------- PETITIONER(S)/3RD ACCUSED:
------------------------------------------- SALI @ SANIL KUMAR, AGED 36 YEARS S/O. CHANDRAN, KALATHIL VADAKKEDIL VEEDU KOZHIMALA P.O., AMABALAMEDU BAGAM, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.MANSOOR.B.H.
RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT:
------------------------------------------------ STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.LALIZA T.Y.
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16-02-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PJ
B.KEMAL PASHA, J.
==================== B.A.No.659 of 2015 ===================== Dated this the 16th day of February, 2015
ORDER
Petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
2.
Petitioner is the 3rd accused in Crime No.397/2014 of Upputhara Police Station, Idukki district registered for the offences punishable under Sections 326 and 341 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3.
The allegation against the petitioner and the other accused is that on 12.12.2014 at 6.15 p.m., they wrongfully frestrained the de-facto complainant, and the 1st accused beat repeatedly on the head of the de-facto complainant with an iron rod, thereby causing fracture of his skull and other head injuries.
4.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned Public Prosecutor.
5. The only allegation against the petitioner is that he had wrongfully restrained the de-facto complainant. There is no allegation that he had made use of any weapon to attack the de-facto complainant. All the main overt acts are alleged against the 1st accused. Moreover, the petitioner herein had suffered grievous hurts in Crime No.396 of 2014 of the said police station registered under Sections 326, 323 and 294(b) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, where the defacto complainant is the 1st accused. Considering all the above, I am of the view that this is a fit case wherein anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner. 6.
In the result, this bail application is allowed and the investigating officer or such other police officer, who is conducting the arrest of the petitioner, is directed to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest on his executing a bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like
sum to the satisfaction of the officer conducting arrest, and subject to the following terms and conditions:- (i) The petitioner shall report before the investigating officer in between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m. on all Mondays and Thursdays, commencing from 23.02.2015 for a period of three months or till the filing of the final report in this case, whichever is earlier.
(ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence or influence witnesses.
(iii) The petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation as and when required by the investigating officer.
(iv) The petitioner shall not involve in any offence while on bail.
It is made clear that the violation of any of the conditions stipulated above will result in the cancellation of bail.
Sd/- B.KEMAL PASHA JUDGE DSV/16/2/15 // True Copy // P.A. To Judge