Chandrabose P.P. @ Bose v. State Of Kerala

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.KEMAL PASHA THURSDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JANUARY 2015/25TH POUSHA, 1936 Bail Appl..No.8892 of 2014 ------------------------------------ CRIME NO.665/2014 OF RAJAKKAD POLICE STATION,IDUKKI PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:

------------------------------------- 1.

CHANDRABOSE P.P. @ BOSE,AGED 27 YEARS, S/O.PURUSHOTHAMAN,POOCHAPPALLIYIL HOUSE, BISONVALLEY P.O.,IDUKKI DISTRICT.

2.

ANOOP RAMAKRISHNAN @ ANUMON,AGED 30 YEARS, S/O.RAMAKRISHNAN,PARAKALAYIL HOUSE, BISONVALLEY P.O.,IDUKKI DISTRICT.

3.

BIJU JOSEPH @ PAVAKKA BIJU,AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.JOSEPH,PURAYIDATHIL HOUSE, BISONVALLEY P.O.,IDUKKI DISTRICT.

BY ADV. SRI.S.JIJI RESPONDENT/STATE:

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

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.SREEJITH V.S.

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15-01-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

pk

B.KEMAL PASHA, J.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - B.A.No.8892 of 2014 B - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - Dated this the 15th day of January 2015

ORDER

Petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

2.

Petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 3 in Crime No.665/2014 of Rajakkad Police Station, Idukki district registered for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 324, 452 and 427 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3.

The allegation against the petitioners is that on 20.11.2014 at 9 p.m., they trespassed into the house of the de-facto complainant, abused her father and damaged a chair, thereby causing a wrongful loss of Rs.500/- to them. When the de-facto complainant intervened for the rescue of her father, she was beaten with a wooden stick, on her right thigh.

4.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the

B.A.8892 of 2014 learned Public Prosecutor.

5.

The contents of the C.D. reveal that the investigation of this case is practically over. The custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not required for the continued investigation of the case. No criminal antecedents have been reported against the petitioners. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case and the fact that no criminal antecedents have been reported against the petitioners, I am of the view that this is a fit case wherein anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioners. 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 petitioners, is directed to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest on each of them executing a bond for ₹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

B.A.8892 of 2014 conditions:- (i) The petitioners shall report before the investigating officer in between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m. on all Thursdays and Mondays commencing from 22.1.2015 for a period of three months or till the filing of the final report in this case, whichever is earlier. (ii) The petitioners shall not tamper with the evidence or influence witnesses.

(iii) The petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation as and when required by the investigating officer.

(iv) The petitioners 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 dl // TRUE COPY // PA to Judge