IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl No. 3589 of 2007()
1. V.K.VINOD, (AGED 40 YEARS),
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.M.ASOKAN
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :21/06/2007
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J
------------------------------------
B.A.No.3589 of 2007
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 21st day of June, 2007
ORDER
Application for regular bail. The petitioner faces allegations
under Section 302 and 323 I.P.C. Petitioner is the nephew of the
deceased. There allegedly was a boundary dispute between the sister
of the accused and the deceased. In the course of an attempt to
identify the boundary, there was some wordy altercation which led to
the petitioner allegedly hitting the deceased with hand and kicking
him with his leg. The deceased had some cardiac ailments. Unable to
stand the strain, he expired. Allegations under Section 302 I.P.C are
raised against the petitioner. The petitioner had come before this
Court claiming anticipatory bail. That prayer was rejected, but the
petitioner was permitted to surrender before the Investigating Officer
on a specified date. He could not do so. But he later surrendered
before the learned Magistrate on 05.06.2007. He was remanded to
custody. Later the police filed an application to get police custody.
That prayer was resisted, but the petitioner was permitted to be
interrogated in the prison. Such interrogation is also over. The
petitioner has been continuing in custody from 05.06.2007.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
allegations, even if accepted in toto, cannot lead to any inference of
B.A.No.3589 of 2007 2
culpability under Section 302 or 304 I.P.C and at worst what is
revealed is only an offence punishable under Section 323 Cr.P.C.
Counsel submits that in these circumstances the continued detention
of the petitioner in custody is unnecessary and unjustified. It is
prayed that the petitioner may, in these circumstances, be released on
bail.
3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application.
The learned Public Prosecutor submits that it is too early to sail to a
conclusion that the offence under Section 302 or 304 I.P.C will not be
revealed. Being the nephew, he must be assumed to know or imputed
with the knowledge that his uncle was suffering from acute cardiac
disease and that his conduct is certain to lead to the death of the
deceased.
4. I shall not enter into the controversies raised. Suffice it to
say that I am satisfied that bail can be granted to the petitioner
subject to appropriate conditions,. I take note of the submission of
the learned Public Prosecutor that the deceased and the petitioner
are neighbours and relatives and continued presence of the petitioner
in the locality is likely to act as an irritant and might endanger the
law and order situation.
5. In the result, this application is, allowed. The petitioner
shall be released on bail on the following terms and conditions.
B.A.No.3589 of 2007 3
i) The petitioner shall execute a bond for Rs.50,000/-
(Rupees Fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the
like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate;
ii) The petitioner shall not enter the jurisdiction of Chevayur
Police Station, Kozhikode district for a period of two months from the
date of his release except for the purpose of complying with the
condition No.(iii) below;
iii) The petitioner shall make himself available for
interrogation before the Investigating Officer between 10 a.m and 12
noon on all Mondays for a period of three months and thereafter as
and when directed by the Investigating Officer in writing to do so.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
rtr/-