High Court Kerala High Court

K.Suresh Kumar vs State Of Kerala on 24 June, 2009

Kerala High Court
K.Suresh Kumar vs State Of Kerala on 24 June, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl..No. 2971 of 2009()


1. K.SURESH KUMAR,S/O.KOCHU KRISHNAN,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.B.MOHANLAL

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

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

 Dated :24/06/2009

 O R D E R
                             K.T.SANKARAN, J.
                ------------------------------------------------------
                         B.A. NO. 2971 OF 2009
                ------------------------------------------------------
                      Dated this the 24th June, 2009

                                  O R D E R

This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is the accused in Crime

No.379 of 2009 of Kadakkal Police Station.

2. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Sections

353 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The prosecution case is that on 18.5.2009 at 9 AM, when the de

facto complainant, who was a staff of the Panchayat, went to the house of

the accused for numbering the house, the petitioner pushed her and

snatched the number plates.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner

is a chauffeur in the Department of Tourism and he was on duty round the

clock from 11.5.2009 to 18.5.2009 with the election observers in

connection with the election duty. It is contended that the petitioner was

on duty as a supporting staff. The counsel relied on Annexure II duty

certificate and also Annexure I proceedings of the District Collector to

show that the petitioner was on duty as a supporting staff to the

B.A. NO. 2971 OF 2009

:: 2 ::

Observers of the election. It is contended by the counsel for the petitioner

that the case is a foisted one due to the enmity between the petitioner and

the husband of the de facto complainant.

5. It is not necessary to arrive at any conclusion on the basis of

these rival contentions, as any finding or observation in the order

disposing of the bail application may cause prejudice either to the

prosecution or to the accused.

6. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case,

the nature of the offence and other circumstances, I am of the view that

anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner. There will be a direction

that in the event of the arrest of the petitioner, the officer in charge of the

police station shall release him on bail on his executing bond for

Rs.25,000/- with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the

satisfaction of the officer concerned, subject to the following conditions:

a) The petitioner shall report before the investigating officer
between 9 A.M. and 11 A.M. on every alternate Sundays,
till the final report is filed or until further orders;

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

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

B.A. NO. 2971 OF 2009

:: 3 ::

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

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

The Bail Application is allowed to the extent indicated above.

(K.T.SANKARAN)
Judge

ahz/