Loading...
Responsive image

Anilkumar @ Unni vs State Of Kerala on 21 January, 2009

Kerala High Court
Anilkumar @ Unni vs State Of Kerala on 21 January, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl..No. 44 of 2009()


1. ANILKUMAR @ UNNI,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. KRISHNAKUMAR,
3. SUNIL,
4. RAJAMMA,

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.C.RAJENDRAN

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA

 Dated :21/01/2009

 O R D E R
                                 K. HEMA, J.
                 ---------------------------------------------------
                      Bail Appl. No. 44 of 2009
                 ---------------------------------------------------
             Dated this the 21st day of January, 2009.

                                     ORDER

Petition for anticipatory bail.

2. The alleged offences are under Sections 143,

147, 148, 447, 341, 323, 326 and 149 of IPC. According to

prosecution, petitioners (A1 to A3) in furtherance of common

intention assaulted de facto complainant and caused fracture to

the nasal bone and other injuries.

3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that

petitioners have not committed any offence, as alleged. There

was a push and pull and, in the meantime, de facto complainant

had fallen down and sustained fracture to nasal bone. The

incident happened because of some other reason. De facto

complainant was constructing a commercial flat in the adjacent

building where piling was going on and as a result, the small

house of petitioner collapsed. In spite of this, de facto

complainant continued the work and though representations

were made by petitioner before the authorities nobody heeded

to the grievances.

[B.A.No.44/09] 2

The de facto complainant approached this Court for police

protection, which was denied by making certain observations

against de facto complainant stating that he may move the civil

court, if so advised. He did not move the civil court but

continued with the piling work so as to create problem to the

peaceful living of petitioners in the partly destructed house.

Because of this, there was some altercation and an unfortunate

incident happened. The charge-sheet has already been filed and

if petitioners surrender before Magistrate Court it is likely that

they will be remanded and hence this petition.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that 4th

petitioner is not an accused in this case. The other petitioners

are accused nos.1 to 3. Charge-sheet has already been laid and

police does not require petitioners for investigation. He also

submitted that he has no objection in granting anticipatory bail to

petitioners in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.

On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that anticipatory bail

can be granted to petitioners on conditions. Hence, the following

order is passed:

1) The prayer for anticipatory bail by 4th petitioner is

rejected as infructuous.

[B.A.No.44/09] 3

2) Petitioners 1 to 3 shall surrender before the

Magistrate Court concerned and they shall be

released on bail in the event of their arrest on their

executing bond for Rs.10,000/- each with two solvent

sureties each for the like to the satisfaction of learned

Magistrate on the following conditions:

i) Petitioners shall not commit any offence

while on bail and in case of breach of this

condition, bail is liable to be cancelled.

Petition is allowed.

K. HEMA, JUDGE.

Krs.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information