IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl No. 75 of 2008()
1. NIBU VARGHESE @ NIBU,
... Petitioner
2. MOHANAN, S/O.NARAYANAN,
3. KUMAR, S/O.THANKAYYA NADAR,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :15/01/2008
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J
------------------------------------
B.A.No.75 of 2008
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 15th day of January, 2008
ORDER
Application for regular bail. Petitioners are accused 1 to 3.
Altogether there are 3 accused persons. The petitioners face
allegations of having committed the offence punishable under
Section 302 r/w 34 I.P.C.
2. The defacto complainant and the 3rd accused are the
sons of the deceased. There was some bitterness and animosity
between the 3rd accused and the deceased consequent to a
dispute regarding partition of family property. Accused 1 and 2
are the friends of the 3rd accused. It is alleged that all the 3
accused, on 22.11.07, had come to the house of the deceased
and had quarrelled with the deceased. There was a physical
altercation also, it is alleged. On 28.11.07, the deceased
complained of pain in the stomach. He was taken to the hospital.
He breathed his last on 28.11.07 itself. Before the burial took
place, the defacto complainant lodged a complaint before the
police raising suspicion about the cause of death of the deceased.
The crime was initially registered under Section 174 Cr.P.C. The
alleged insistence of the 3rd accused that the body be burnt and
B.A.No.75 of 2008 2
not buried allegedly compounded the suspicion against the 3rd
accused. The crime has been registered initially under Section
174 Cr.P.C. But later the allegation under Section 302 I.P.C has
been included. Investigation is in progress. All the 3 petitioners
were arrested on 30.11.07. They continue in custody from that
date.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
the petitioners are innocent. They have been brought on the
array of accused without any justification. It is idle to assume
that the deceased suffered the injuries on 22.11.07 and met with
his death on 28.11.07 on account of such injuries suffered on
22.11.07. The learned counsel for the petitioners brings to the
notice of the Court that there are no injuries described in the
postmortem certificate which can specifically reveal any
deliberate infliction of injury/violence on the deceased. In any
view of the matter, the petitioners, who have remained in
custody from 30.11.07, may now be enlarged on bail, it is
prayed.
4. The learned Public Prosecutor does not oppose the
application for regular bail, but only prays that appropriate
conditions may be imposed. Having considered all the relevant
B.A.No.75 of 2008 3
inputs, I am persuaded to agree that this is a fit case where the
petitioners can be granted regular bail now subject of course to
appropriate conditions.
3. In the result, this application is allowed. The
petitioners shall be released on bail on the following terms and
conditions.
i) The petitioners shall execute bonds for Rs.50,000/-
(Rupees Fifty thousand only) each with two solvent sureties each
for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate;
ii) The petitioners shall make themselves available for
interrogation before the Investigating Officer between 10 a.m and
12 noon on all Mondays and Fridays for a period of three months
and thereafter as and when directed by the Investigating Officer
in writing to do so;
iii) The petitioners shall not, during the said period of 3
months, enter the jurisdiction of Peerumedu Police Station,
without prior permission from the learned Magistrate, except for
the purpose of complying with condition No.ii above.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
rtr/-