High Court Kerala High Court

Faisal vs State Of Kerala on 28 May, 2010

Kerala High Court
Faisal vs State Of Kerala on 28 May, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl..No. 3112 of 2010()


1. FAISAL, AGED 21 YEARS, S/O.ABDULLA,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE S.I. OF POLICE,

                For Petitioner  :SMT.DHANYA P.ASHOKAN

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA

 Dated :28/05/2010

 O R D E R
                            K.HEMA, J.
                         ------------------
                      B.A. No.3112 of 2010
                ------------------------------------
               Dated this the 28th day of May, 2010

                            O R D E R

Petition for bail.

2. The alleged offences are under Sections 341, 324, 326

and 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and

Section 27 of the Arms Act. According to prosecution, petitioner

(A3) along with other accused wrongfully restrained and

assaulted de facto complainant and attempted to commit murder.

Iron rod and sword were used for the commission of the offence.

The incident happened on 09.04.2010 at about 10. P.M.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that there is

some discrepancy regarding involvement of the petitioner in the

case. F.I. Statement would show that one “Jagir” had inflicted

cut injury on the de facto complainant but Annexure-C would

show that one “Mubarak” inflicted the injury. Petitioner’s name is

not shown in the F.I. Statement. Petitioner actually surrendered

before the police on 12.05.2010 on knowing that he is implicated

in the offences and he is in custody for the past 16 days. It is

also submitted that petitioner is implicated only because he

B.A. No.3112 of 2010 2

knows the first accused and when the police came to him in

search of the first accused, his whereabouts could not be stated

by petitioner. First accused is yet to be arrested.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that as per the

allegations made, petitioner had beaten the de facto

complainant with an iron rod. Though his name is not mentioned

in the F.I. Statement, on investigation, his involvement is

revealed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that he has no

objection in granting bail, but stringent conditions may be

imposed.

5. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that bail can be

granted on stringent conditions. Hence the following order is

passed:

Petitioner shall be released on bail on his

executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- with two solvent

sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of

the Magistrate Court concerned on the following

conditions:

B.A. No.3112 of 2010 3

i) Petitioner shall appear before the
Investigating Officer on every Monday and
Thursday, between 10 A.M. and 1 P.M.,
until further orders.

ii) Petitioner shall not enter the limits of the
police station within which the incident
happened, except for compliance of
condition no.1, until further orders.

iii) Petitioner shall not influence or intimidate
any witnesses or tamper with the
evidence.

This petition is allowed.

K. HEMA, JUDGE

ln