P.B.Remanan v. State Of Kerala

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR FRIDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2015/27TH BHADRA, 1937 Bail Appl..No. 5556 of 2015 () ------------------------------- CRIME NO. 1100/2015 OF ALAPPUZHA SOUTH POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT ------------------ PETITIONER/ACCUSED :

--------------------------------- P.B. REMANAN, AGED 49 YEARS, PANIKKASSERRY, KUTIRAPANTHY, THIRUVAMPADY P. O., ALAPPUZHA BY ADV. SRI.B.PRAMOD RESPONDENT :

------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 682031 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. R. REMA THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18-09-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

bp

B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, J.

------------------------------ Bail Appl. No.5556 of 2015 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of September 2015

O R D E R

Petition filed under Sec.438 Cr.P.C.

2. Petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.1100 of 2015 of Alappuzha South Police station registered for the offences under Secs.294(b), 332 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution allegation is that on 29.07.2015 at about 4.30 p.m., the petitioner uttered abusive words against the defacto complainant and caught hold of the collar of the defacto complainant and fisted him while the defacto complainant was checking the transformer for the purpose of repairing the voltage problem in the locality. Due to the said act of the petitioner, the defacto complainant was deterred from doing his official duty. The defacto complainant is an employee of the K.S.E.B. The petitioner is also an employee of the K.S.E.B.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the case

Bail Appl. No.5556 of 2015 2 diary.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor has no serious objection in allowing this application.

5. The defacto complainant did not sustain any serious injury in the incident. The wound certificate, appended to the Case Diary, would show that the defacto complainant did not sustain any external injury.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, including the nature of allegations, I am of the view that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary for the purpose of investigation of the case. In the result, this bail application stands allowed and the investigating officer is directed to release the petitioner on bail, in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No.1100 of 2015 of Alappuzha South Police station, on condition of the petitioner executing a bond for Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Sub Inspector of Police, Alappuzha South Police station before whom the petitioner shall

Bail Appl. No.5556 of 2015 3 surrender within ten days from today, if not already arrested, and subject to the following conditions.

1. The petitioner shall report before the investigating officer as and when required by the investigating officer for interrogation.

2. The petitioner shall not intimidate or influence the witnesses or in any way tamper with the investigation.

3. The petitioner shall not get involved in similar offences during the period of bail.

Sd/- B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR JUDGE / True Copy / NS P.A. To Judge