Allowed

Anil Kumar v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC21 Mar 2013Bail Appl./2150/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed bail for accused persons alleged to have committed offences under Sections 294(b), 323, 354 IPC. Finding discrepancies between an initial domestic complaint and the FIR, the court exercised extraordinary jurisdiction to grant bail subject to standard conditions including surrender and reporting.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed on conditions: surrender by 27.03.2013, reporting weekly between 9-10 AM, execution of bond for Rs. 10,000 with two sureties, and no tampering with evidence or witnesses.

Anil Kumar Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH 2013/30TH PHALGUNA 1934

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 2150 of 2013 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 424/2013 OF KOTTARAKKARA POLICE STATION , KOLLAM DISTRICT

¶7

-------------------------------------------

¶8

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED 1 & 2 :

¶9

1. ANIL KUMAR, AGED 42 YEARS,

¶10

S/O.MAHESWARAN NAIR, MANGALATH HOUSE, VENMANNOOR,

¶11

KOTTARAKKARA, ANAKKOTTOOR P.O, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶12

2. SREEKUMAR, AGED 39 YEARS,

¶13

S/O.SUKUMARA PILLAI, HARIBHAVAN, NEDUVATHOOR,

¶14

NELEESWARAM P.O., KOTTARAKKARA - 691 505.

¶15

BY ADV. SRI.V.RAJENDRAN (PERUMBAVOOR)

¶16

RESPONDENT(S)/STATE AND COMPLAINANT:

¶17

1. STATE OF KERALA,

¶18

REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM- 682 031.

¶19

2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOTTARAKKARA POLICE STATION, KOTTARAKKARA - 691 506, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶20

R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.ROY THOMAS

¶21

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21-03-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

sts

¶23

P.BHAVADASAN, J.

¶24

Bail Application No.2150 OF 2013

¶25

Dated this the 21^st day of March, 2013.

¶26

O R D E R

¶27

The petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.424/2013 of Kottarakkara Police Station who are alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 323 and 354 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegation against the petitioners is that while the de facto complainant along with others including her husband had gone to Indian Coffee House, Kottarakkara branch at about 5.30 p.m on 03.02.2013, they wanted the table to be cleaned and when that was solicited, it is alleged that the petitioners abused them and one of them caught hold of the hand of the de facto complainant.

¶28

The petitioners would say that the allegations are totally false and without any basis. They have produced Annexure A1 document, a complaint said to have been filed by the husband of the de facto complainant soon after the incident. It is pointed

¶29

out that in the said complaint, absolutely no mention is made

¶30

B.A.No.2150/2013

¶31

¶32

about catching hold of the hand of the de facto complainant. It would, therefore, be seen, according to the petitioners, that the complaint now made on the basis of which a crime is registered is a subsequent embellishment and a manipulated version of incident only to see that the petitioners are harassed and humiliated.

¶33

Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the petition and pointed out that the investigation is at an infant stage.

¶34

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. The records were perused. The incident is said to have occurred on 03.02.2013. The petitioners have produced Annexure A1, which is a complaint said to have

¶35

been filed by the husband of the de facto complainant immediately after the incident and it does not contain the statement that is given in the complaint now made. The complaint which led to the crime now registered has been filed only on 23.02.2013. Again it is to be noticed that at the time of filing Annexure A1, the complaint was only against the cashier and at the time of filing the later complaint, another person is

B.A.No.2150/2013

also added.

There is considerable force in the submissions made by the petitioners that they have been unnecessarily implicated with ulterior motive. It is true that a probe into the veracity of the allegations is not warranted at his point of time. But, the above facts cannot be overlooked.

¶40

Considering the nature of the allegations and the fact that the initial complaint did not contain any objectionable act on the part of the petitioners, it is felt that this is a fit case where extra ordinary jurisdiction needs to be exercised in favour of the petitioners. Therefore, the application is allowed on the following conditions:

¶41

i) The petitioners shall surrender before the Investigating Officer on or before 27.03.2013 who, after interrogation, shall produce them before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court concerned, which court, on application for bail being moved by the petitioners, shall release them on bail on each of them executing bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court concerned.

¶42

B.A.No.2150/2013

¶43

¶44

ii) The learned Magistrate shall ensure the identity of the sureties and also the veracity of the tax receipts produced by them.

¶45

iii) The petitioners shall report before the Investigating Officer on every Wednesday between 9 a.m and 10 a.m until further orders

¶46

iv) The petitioners shall not tamper or attempt to tamper with the evidence or influence or try to influence the witness.

¶47

v) If any of the condition is violated, the bail granted shall stand cancelled and the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court concerned, on being satisfied of the said fact, may take such steps as are available to him in law.

¶48

P.BHAVADASAN JUDGE

¶49

smp

Anil Kumar v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Kumar v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abison Vs the State of Kerala

Moidutty Vs State of Kerala

Deva Rajan Vs State of Kerala

Rajaneesh Vs State of Kerala

Salim B.A. Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

K.V. Suresh Vs State of Kerala