Ranjith T.R. v. State Of Kerala
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE 2015/20TH JYAISHTA, 1937 Bail Appl..No. 3188 of 2015 () ------------------------------- CRIME NO. 351/2015 OF ANTHIKAD POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT. .......
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 & 2:
---------------------------------------------------
1. RANJITH T.R., S/O.RAVI, AGED 22 YEARS, THACHAPPILLY HOUSE, PERINGOTTUKARA P.O., THANIYAM VILLAGE, THRISSUR.
2. SANJAY SEKHAR, S/O.CHANDRA SEKHAR, AGED 20 YEARS, KUNJANDIYIL HOUSE, CHULOOR P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.K.I.SAGEER IBRAHIM.
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
--------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ANTHIKKAD POLICE STATION, (CRIME NO.351/2015), ANTHIKKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT, REPRESENTED THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.DHANESH MATHEW MANJOORAN. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10-06-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
rs.
K. HARILAL, J.
------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 10th day of June, 2015
ORDER
The petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.351 of 2015 of Anthikad Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Secs.341, 324, 308 read with Sec.34 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. The gist of the allegations against the petitioners are that on 18/4/2015 at about 3.30 p.m., due to some political enmity, the petitioners wrongfully restrained the de facto complainant and his friend while they were travelling on a motor cycle and when they reached near Thannyam Petrol Pump, the 1st accused chopped the de facto complainant on his thigh with a knife like weapon and when his friend
-: 2 :- attempted to rescue him, he was beaten by the 2nd accused with an iron rod and thus they committed the aforesaid offences. The petitioners were arrested on 20/4/2015 and remanded to judicial custody.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent of the allegations levelled against them and they have nothing to do with the allegations. They are implicated in the above crime solely due to political enmity and their continued detention is not necessary for further investigation.
4. The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submits that, as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners, they are the accused in the crime registered for the offences punishable under Secs.341, 324, 308 read with Sec.34 of the IPC and they were arrested on 20/4/2015. It is also submitted that investigation is going on and not completed so far. The learned Public Prosecutor expressed an apprehension that if they are released on bail, they
-: 3 :- may tamper with the evidence or flee from justice.
5. Having regard to the entire facts and circumstances of this case and the submissions made at the Bar, I find that continued detention is not necessary for further investigation and bail can be granted to the petitioners on stringent conditions. Therefore, this application is allowed on the following conditions:
(i) The petitioners shall be released on bail on their executing bonds for `1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction to the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Thrissur.
(ii) The petitioners shall report before the Investigating Officer on every Monday and Friday at 10 a.m.
(iii) The petitioners shall not tamper or attempt to tamper with the evidence or influence or try to influence the witnesses acquainted
-: 4 :- with the facts and circumstances of this case.
If any of the conditions is violated, the bail granted to the petitioners shall stand cancelled automatically and in that event, the learned Magistrate concerned, on being satisfied of the said fact, may take appropriate steps as are available to him in law.
Sd/- (K. HARILAL, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge