High Court Kerala High Court

Peethambaran @ Kanchiyar vs State Represented By Public on 1 January, 2009

Kerala High Court
Peethambaran @ Kanchiyar vs State Represented By Public on 1 January, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl..No. 7585 of 2009()


1. PEETHAMBARAN @ KANCHIYAR
                      ...  Petitioner
2. MANOJ, AGED 33 YEARS,

                        Vs



1. STATE REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.A.P.SUBHASH

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.Q.BARKATH ALI

 Dated :01/01/2009

 O R D E R
                          P. Q. BARKATH ALI, J.
                    ----------------------------------------
                          B.A.No.7585 of 2009
                     ---------------------------------------
                Dated this 01st day of January, 2010

                                   ORDER

This is a bail application filed by accused Nos.1 and 2 in crime

No.689 of 2009 of Kattapana Police Station coming within the

jurisdiction of First Class Magistrate, Kattapana under section 439 of

the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. The allegation against the petitioners is that they along

with accused Nos.3 to 6 trespassed into the property of Kattapana

Grama Panchayath, opposite to Kattapana bus stand and constructed a

shed therein on 07-12-2009 at 10.30 a.m and that when the de-facto

complainant, who is the Secretary of Grama Panchayath tried to

remove the obstruction, they threatened to kill him and caused

damage to the wire fencing and boundary stone of that property to the

extent of Rs.5000/- and thereby committed offences punishable under

sections 447, 143, 144, 147, 148, 309, 353, 427 r/w 149 IPC and

section 3(1) of P.D.P.P Act. The petitioners were arrested on 07-12-

2009 and the learned Magistrate remanded them thereafter. Trial

court refused to grant bail to accused Nos.1 and 2 but released on bail

accused Nos.3 to 6.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioners that the

property in dispute belonged to 5th accused who is the mother of 1st

accused who obtained the property under a sale agreement dated 03-

B.A.No.7585 of 2009 2

04-1971 executed by one Joseph Thomas, copy of which is produced as

annexure B document and that they are innocent of the offences

alleged against them.

4. Notice given to the Public Prosecutor. The petition is

opposed by Public Prosecutor. Heard the counsel for petitioner and

Public Prosecutor.

5. The accused are asserting their right over the disputed

property through annexure B document. Therefore it is a civil dispute

between the petitioners and Panchayath. Further they are arrested on

07-12-2009 and is in custody for more than 24 days. It is submitted by

Public Prosecutor that main witnesses have already being questioned

by the police. Further, accused Nos.3 to 6 have already been released

on bail. In the circumstances I feel that petitioners can be released on

bail, but on conditions.

In the result, the petition is allowed. Petitioners shall be released

on bail on their executing bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five

Thousand Only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum each to

the satisfaction of the lower court on the following conditions.

(i) Petitioner shall appear before the investigating

officer as and when ordered.

(ii) Petitioners shall cooperate with the investigation

and shall not commit similar offences while on bail.

B.A.No.7585 of 2009 3

(iii) Petitioners shall not try to influence the witnesses

or intimidate the witnesses or tamper with the

evidence.

P. Q. BARKATH ALI,
JUDGE

Sbna/
h/o