Loading...
Responsive image

Nazar vs State Of Kerala on 1 January, 2009

Kerala High Court
Nazar vs State Of Kerala on 1 January, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl..No. 7916 of 2008()


1. NAZAR, S/O.KHADER, AGED 35 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.P.MADHU

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA

 Dated :01/01/2009

 O R D E R
                               K. HEMA, J.
        - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                        B.A. No. 7916 of 2008
        - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
            Dated this the 1st day of January,2009

                                 O R D E R

Petition for anticipatory bail.

2. The alleged offences are under sections 452 and 332

IPC. According to prosecution, petitioner trespassed into the

Electricity Office and assaulted an Overseer, asking him what

he had done etc., and deterred him from discharging his official

duty. On the complaint of the Overseer, the Asst. Executive

Officer lodged an First Information Statement, based on which,

F.I.R. was registered against petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that

petitioner is an illiterate person. He has six cents of property

and his neighbour wanted to draw an electric line over

petitioner’s property, which was objected to by petitioner, since

he will not be able to construct a proper house in future, if

drawing is allowed. Several times, the neighbour attempted to

get petitioner’s consent and official in the K.S.E.B. were also

influenced by him to get consent from petitioner. Petitioner was

called to the K.S.E.B. office by the Overseer. He went there and

petitioner’s signature was obtained fraudulently by the Overseer

and later, the line was drawn over the petitioner’s property

while petitioner was not available in the house.

BA 7916 /08 -2-

4. Petitioner’s wife objected to this, when it was made

known to her that a consent was obtained from petitioner. When

petitioner knew that consent was fraudulently obtained by him,

he went to the office and he found Overseer standing on the

road. There was an altercation between petitioner and overseer

regarding obtaining of signature from petitioner and nothing

more had happened. The complaint is lodged falsely against

petitioner and hence, he may be granted anticipatory bail, it is

submitted.

5. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the

allegations are serious in nature, but nothing is stated in the

complaint as to why petitioner had acted in the manner against

the Overseer.

6. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that anticipatory

bail can be granted to petitioner and hence, the following order

is passed:-

(1) Petitioner shall surrender before the Magistrate

court concerned within seven days from today

and he shall be released on bail, on his

executing a bond for Rs. 25,000/- with two

solvent sureties each, for the like amount, to

BA 7916 /08 -3-

the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate, on

the following conditions:-

i) Petitioner shall co-operate with the

investigation and report before the the

Investigating Officer as and when

directed.

ii) Petitioner shall not commit any offence

while on bail.

This petition is allowed.

K.HEMA, JUDGE.

mn.

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