← Library
High Court of KeralaBail Appl./5258/2015allowed

Sanal Kumar S v. State Of Kerala

2015-09-03Honourable Mr. Justice A.Hariprasad3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD THURSDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2015/12TH BHADRA, 1937 Bail Appl..No. 5258 of 2015 --------------------------------------- CRIME NO. 790/2015 OF BALARAMAPURAM POLICE STATION , THIRUVANANTHAPURAM --------------------- PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED :

---------------------------------------- SANAL KUMAR S., AGED 37 YEARS, S/O.SIMON, SANAL NIVAS, THILAK NAGAR, ERUTHAVOOR, OORUTTAMBALAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.MANU V.

RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT STATE AND INVESTIGATING OFFICER : ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, BALARAMAPURAM POLICE STATION, BALARAMAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 501.

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.RAJESH VIJAYAN THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03-09-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

Msd.

A.HARIPRASAD, J.

-------------------------------------- B.A. No.5258 of 2015 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of September, 2015

ORDER

Petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2.

Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.790 of 2015 of Balaramapuram Police Station involved in offences punishable under Sections 354 and 354A of the Indian Penal Code. Prosecution case is that the defacto complainant and the accused were working in the same veterinary dispensary. While so, the accused misbehaved towards the defacto complainant and caught hold of her hand and uttered abusive words towards her. Petitioner pleaded innocence. 3.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

4.

Considering the nature of allegations in the first information statement and the fact that custodial interrogation may not be necessary, I am of the view that the petition can be allowed with the following directions: i.

Petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer within a period of two weeks and submit himself for interrogation. Thereafter he shall execute a bond for `25,000/- (Rupees twentyfive thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the

BA No.5258/2015 satisfaction of the investigating officer. In that event, he shall be released on bail in Crime No.790 of 2015 of Balaramapuram Police Station. ii.

Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when directed if any investigation is required in the matter. iii.

He shall not influence or intimidate the witnesses. In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction is empowered to cancel the bail in accordance with law without referring the matter to this Court. A. HARIPRASAD, JUDGE.

cks