Jinesh @ Manikantan vs State Of Kerala on 14 January, 2010

Kerala High Court
Jinesh @ Manikantan vs State Of Kerala on 14 January, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl..No. 17 of 2010()


1. JINESH @ MANIKANTAN,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. MURUKAN, S/O.BALAKRISHNAN,

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.S.MOHAMMED AL RAFI

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN

 Dated :14/01/2010

 O R D E R
                        K.T.SANKARAN, J.
                  ---------------------------------------------
                         B.A.No.17 of 2010
                  ---------------------------------------------
             Dated this the 14th day of January, 2010


                               ORDER

This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section

438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners are

accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.249 of 2009 of Pozhiyoor

Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram District.

2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under

Sections 323 and 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal

Code.

3. The prosecution case is that on 13.12.2009, at 8 P.M.

while the de facto complainant was going home after taking a

bath in the river, he was attacked by the accused. The first

accused beat him with an iron rod. It is also alleged that the

second accused beat him and kicked him. The de facto

complainant sustained injuries. The wound certificate discloses

that the de facto complainant had sustained fracture on his right

forearm.

4. The petitioners have a different story. It is stated that

on 13.12.2009, at about 1 P.M., the motor bike driven by the first

BA No.17/2010 2

petitioner and another bike driven by one James had a collision.

The de facto complainant was the pillion rider on the motor bike

of James. There was no complaint for either party. The first

petitioner went home. In the evening, the de facto complainant

picked up a quarrel with the first petitioner in respect of the

incident which took place at 1 P.M. The first petitioner was

attacked by the de facto complainant. The first petitioner

sustained injuries. He was admitted in the hospital and he was

treated as an inpatient in the hospital for 8 days. Crime No.258

of 2009 was registered against the de facto complainant under

Sections 294(b), 341 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code.

5. It is stated that the second petitioner is the father of

the first petitioner. The allegation against the second petitioner

is beating with hands and kicking. The injury sustained by the

de facto complainant is not attributable to any overt act done by

the second accused. In these circumstances, I am inclined to

grant anticipatory bail to the second petitioner (second accused).

However, taking into account the facts and circumstances of the

case, the nature and gravity of the offence and the injury

sustained by the de facto complainant, I am not inclined to grant

BA No.17/2010 3

anticipatory bail to the first petitioner (first accused).

There will be a direction that in the event of the arrest of

the second petitioner/second accused (Murukan), the officer in

charge of the police station shall release him on bail on his

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

like amount to the satisfaction of the officer concerned, subject

to the following conditions:

a) The second petitioner shall appear before the investigating
officer for interrogation as and when required;

b) The second petitioner shall not try to influence the
prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence;

c) The second petitioner shall not commit any offence or
indulge in any prejudicial activity while on bail;

d) In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above,
the bail shall be liable to be cancelled.

The Bail Application is dismissed in so far as it relates to

the first petitioner (first accused) and it is allowed in the manner

indicated above in so far as it relates to the second

petitioner/second accused.

K.T.SANKARAN,
JUDGE
csl

Leave a Reply

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

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *