High Court Kerala High Court

Raneesh.P.V vs State Of Kerala on 31 March, 2010

Kerala High Court
Raneesh.P.V vs State Of Kerala on 31 March, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl..No. 1517 of 2010()


1. RANEESH.P.V, S/O.O.P.KUNHIRAMAN,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. RAJIL.P.V, S/O.O.P.KUNHIRAMAN,
3. SANESH.P, S/O.BALAKRISHNAN.C,
4. AKHILESH.O.P,S/O.O.P.KUNHIRAMAN,
5. UMESH.C, S/O.PADMANABHAN.K,CHALLIIL
6. VIPIN.C.V, S/O.BALAKRISHNAN.P,
7. PRASANTH.V, S/O.KELOTH, KUNHIRAMAN,
8. RANJITH.K,S/O.KUNHIRAMAN.K, KALLORI

                        Vs



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

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.U.SHAILAJAN

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

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

 Dated :31/03/2010

 O R D E R
                           K.T.SANKARAN, J.
              ------------------------------------------------------
                        B.A. NO. 1517 OF 2010
              ------------------------------------------------------
              Dated this the 31st day of March, 2010


                                 O R D E R

When the Bail Application came up for hearing on 24.3.2010,

the following order was passed:

“This is an application for anticipatory bail under

Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The

petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 8 in Crime No.171 of

2010 of Taliparamba Police Station.

2. The offences alleged against the petitioners

are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 326

and 506(ii) read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal

Code.

3. The prosecution case is that on 21.2.2010, the

de facto complainant was attacked by the accused. The

allegation is that accused No.1 had beaten him with

hands, which resulted in an injury noted in the wound

certificate as “Traumatic perforation to the right ear

drum”. Accused No.2 had punched the de facto

complainant with a hitting block. It is alleged that the

other accused had also beaten the de facto complainant.

B.A. NO. 1517 OF 2010

:: 2 ::

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners

submitted that the grievous hurt caused to the de facto

complainant is not attributable to any assault with any

dangerous weapon or any instrument or any other

weapon of offence and therefore, Section 326 of the

Indian Penal Code would not be attracted. He

contended that only an offence under Section 325 of the

Indian Penal Code would be attracted, which is bailable.

5. Tking into account the facts and circumstances

of the case, I am of the view that before disposing of the

Bail Application, an opportunity should be given to the

petitioners to appear before the investigating officer.

Accordingly, there will be a direction to the petitioners to

appear before the investigating officer at 9 AM on 26th

and 27th March, 2010.

Post on 31.3.2010.

It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor

that the petitioners will not be arrested until further

orders in connection with Crime No.171 of 2010 of

Taliparamba Police Station.

The petitioners shall produce copy of this order

before the investigating officer.”

B.A. NO. 1517 OF 2010

:: 3 ::

2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners as

well as the learned Public Prosecutor that the direction in the order

dated 24.3.2010 has been complied with by the petitioners.

3. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the

case, the nature of the offence and also taking note of the fact that

the direction in the order dated 24.3.2010 has been complied with

by the petitioners, I am of the view that anticipatory bail can be

granted to the petitioners. There will be a direction that in the event

of the arrest of the petitioners, the officer in charge of the police

station shall release them on bail on their executing bond

fors.15,000/- each with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the

satisfaction of the officer concerned, subject to the following

conditions:

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

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

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

B.A. NO. 1517 OF 2010

:: 4 ::

d) The petitioners 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/