High Court Kerala High Court

Manoj @ Nebu George vs The Sub Inspector on 26 May, 2009

Kerala High Court
Manoj @ Nebu George vs The Sub Inspector on 26 May, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl..No. 2752 of 2009()


1. MANOJ @ NEBU GEORGE, S/O.GEORGE,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE SUB INSPECTOR, THIRUVALLA POLICE
                       ...       Respondent

2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE

                For Petitioner  :SRI.V.SETHUNATH

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

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

 Dated :26/05/2009

 O R D E R
                       K.T.SANKARAN, J.

                -----------------------------------------
                        B.A.No. 2752 of 2009
                -----------------------------------------

                Dated this the 26th May, 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.469/2009 of Thiruvalla Police Station.

2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under

Sections 294(b), 452, 341, 506(ii), 324 and 323 of the Indian

Penal Code.

3. The prosecution case is that the accused committed

house trespass and assaulted the de facto complainant. The de

facto complainant is a Priest. It is stated that the de facto

complainant overtook a vehicle driven by the accused for the

purpose of turning to the right. Ignoring the indication given

for turning, the accused overtook the vehicle of the de facto

complainant. Thereafter, the de facto complainant wanted to

overtake the vehicle of the accused, which the accused did not

permit. It is alleged that the accused entered into the house of

BA.2752/09 2

the de facto complainant and committed the offences. The

injuries noted are not serious in nature. In the nature of

allegations, I do not think, custodial interrogation is absolutely

essential. There is also no case that the accused would flee

from justice.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor seriously opposed the

application for anticipatory bail.

5. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the

case, the nature of the offences, the injury sustained 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 for a period of one

month 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 AM and 11

AM on all Mondays, till the final report is

filed or until further orders;

BA.2752/09 3

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;

D) The petitioner shall not commit any offence

or indulge in any prejudicial activity while

on bail.

E) On the expiry of the period mentioned

above, the petitioner shall surrender

before the Magistrate concerned and seek

regular bail.

F) In case of breach of any of the conditions

mentioned above, the bail shall be liable to

be cancelled.

The Bail Application is allowed as above.

K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE
vgs.