Mohandas v. State Of Kerala

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD FRIDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2015/8TH KARTHIKA, 1937 Bail Appl..No. 6665 of 2015 ------------------------------- CRIME NO. 1169/2015 OF NEDUMANGAD POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

..........

PETITIONER/2ND ACCUSED:

----------------------------------------- MOHANDAS, S/O. ACHUTHA PANICKER, VALIYA KATTACHIL VEEDU, ANANDA NAGAR, PAZHAKUTTY P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

BY ADVS.SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN SRI.SAIJO HASSAN RESPONDENT/STATE:

------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.T.Y.LALIZA THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30-10-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

mbr/

A. HARIPRASAD, J.

------------------------------ Bail Appl. No.6665 of 2015 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of October 2015

O R D E R

Bail application filed under Sec.438 Cr.P.C.

2. Now, the petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.1169 of 2015 of Nedumangad Police station. The case is registered for the offences punishable under Secs.341 and 308 read with Sec.34 of the Indian Penal Code. Originally, there were two accused in this case. Name of the other accused has been deleted. Prosecution case in short is that, on 31.07.2015, there was an altercation between the defacto complainant and the petitioner in connection with handing over money collected for medial aid at the aegis of SNDP sakha. The petitioner attacked the defacto complainant with an iron rod causing injury on head is the prosecution allegation.

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

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the allegation is that the petitioner committed an

Bail Appl. No.6665 of 2015 2 offence under Sec.308 IPC is totally false.

5. I have perused the wound certificate. Very minor injuries have been sustained by the defacto complainant. Further, involvement of two accused have been narrated in the wound certificate. Now, petitioner is the only accused. I find no necessity to have a custodial interrogation of the petitioner. Therefore, following directions are issued.

1. The petitioner shall surrender before the investigating officer within a period of one week and submit himself for interrogation.

2. In the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be released 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 investigating officer.

3. The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation as and when directed by him in writing.

4. The petitioner shall not intimidate or

Bail Appl. No.6665 of 2015 3 attempt to influence the witnesses, nor shall he tamper with the evidence.

In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the learned Magistrate is empowered to cancel the bail in accordance with law without referring the matter to this Court.

Sd/- A. HARIPRASAD JUDGE / True Copy / NS/30/10/2015 P.A. To Judge