High Court Kerala High Court

Ramesh vs The State Of Kerala on 26 March, 2008

Kerala High Court
Ramesh vs The State Of Kerala on 26 March, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl No. 1656 of 2008()


1. RAMESH, AGED 30 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. PURUSHAN, AGED 52 YEARS,
3. KAILASAN, AGED 35,

                        Vs



1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.E.RAFEEK

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :26/03/2008

 O R D E R
                              R. BASANT, J.
                    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                       B.A.No. 1656 of 2008
                    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
             Dated this the 26th day of March, 2008

                                 O R D E R

Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioners are

accused 1 to 3. There are three injured persons. About an

incident which took place on 28.2.2008, allegations and counter

allegations have been raised. In this crime against the petitioners

allegations are raised under Sections 324 and 307 I.P.C. inter

alia. In the crime registered against the defacto complainant in

this crime, allegations are raised under Section 324 I.P.C.

Sword stick is the weapon allegedly used by the defacto

complainant, whereas sickle is the weapon allegedly used by the

petitioners. The first accused is even now undergoing treatment

in the hospital, it is submitted.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the

petitioners are innocent and that they are really the victims of

aggression and not the aggressors. Inclusion of the allegation

under Section 307 I.P.C. against the petitioners is most

B.A.No. 1656 of 2008
2

unjustified and reflects only the influence which the defacto

complainant is able to exercise over the police. It is prayed that the

petitioners may now be granted anticipatory bail. They shall co-

operate with the investigators, it is submitted.

3. The learned Prosecutor does not oppose the application, but

submits that appropriate and strict conditions may be imposed.

4. Having considered all the relevant inputs, I am satisfied that

appropriate directions can be issued under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in

favour of the petitioners, subject to appropriate conditions.

5. In the result:

(1) This application is allowed.

(2) The following directions are issued under Section 438

Cr.P.C.

(a) The petitioners shall surrender before the learned Magistrate

on 2.4.2008 at 11 a.m. The learned Magistrate shall release the

petitioners on regular bail on condition that they 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.

B.A.No. 1656 of 2008
3

(b) The petitioners shall make themselves available for

interrogation before the Investigating Officer between 10 a.m. and 3

p.m. on 3.4.2008 and 4.4.2008 and thereafter on all Mondays and

Fridays between 10 a.m. And 12 noon for a period of one month and

subsequently as and when directed by the Investigating Officer in

writing to do so.

(d) If the petitioners do not appear before the learned Magistrate

as directed in clause (1) above, these directions shall lapse on 2.4.08

and the police shall be at liberty thereafter to arrest the petitioners and

deal with them in accordance with law.

(e) If the petitioners were arrested prior to their surrender on

2.4.2008 as directed in clause (1) above, they shall be released on

bail on their executing bonds for Rs.50,000/- without any surety

undertaking to appear before the learned Magistrate on 2.4.2008.

(R. BASANT)
Judge

tm