Allowed

Binumon @ Mani v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC13 Jun 2018Bail Appl./2359/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought anticipatory bail as the 5th accused in a criminal case involving electrocution. The court granted bail allowing appearance for interrogation with monetary bond and conditions to prevent inducement and re-offending.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed. Anticipatory bail granted subject to execution of bond for Rs. 50,000 with two sureties for same amount, appearance before IO, and specific conduct conditions.

Binumon @ Mani Vs the State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JUNE 2018 / 23RD JYAISHTA, 1940

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 2359 of 2018

¶6

CRIME NO. 282/2017 OF AGALI POLICE STATION , PALAKKAD

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NO.5

¶8

BINUMON @ MANI, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O.ARUMUGHAN, SRAMBIKKAL HOUSE, KAKKUPADI, MUKKALI POST, AGALI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.K.B.ARUNKUMAR SRI.RANJIT BABU SMT.S.REKHA KUMARI

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/STATE:

¶11

THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED THROUGH THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, AGALI POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682031.

¶12

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.N.PRABHAKARAN

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13-06-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

IAP

¶15

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, J.

¶16

B.A. No.2359 of 2018

¶17

Dated this the 13^th day of June, 2018

¶18

ORDER

¶19

1.This application is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶20

2.The applicant herein is the 5^th accused in Crime No.282 of 2017 of the Agali Police Station, registered under Sections 201 and 304 r/w Sec.34 of the IPC, Sec.135(1)(e) r/w Sec.151(B) of the Electricity Act, 2003 and under Section 3(2) (v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

¶21

3.The accused Nos.2 and 3 in the aforesaid Crime are the owners of an item of property, which was being used for agricultural purposes. They are alleged to have availed services of the 1^st accused, who is a tribal, to put up electrical fencing enclosing the property apparently for protecting agricultural crops and also to prevent wild animals from straying inside the property. On 24.8.2017, without being aware that the fence was electrified, a tribal man made

¶22

B.A.No.2359 of 2018 2

¶23

contact and he was electrocuted. Insofar as the applicant herein is concerned, the allegation is that he is a contract labourer of the KSEB and that he was aware of the shifting of the meter by the accused Nos.1 to 3.

¶24

4.The learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that on similar allegations, accused Nos.4 and 6 were also roped in and this Court by order dated 9.4.2018 in B.A. No.369 of 2018 has granted anticipatory bail to the said accused. The learned counsel would submit that the electrification of the fence was carried out by the 1^st accused and it was done at the behest of accused Nos.2 and 3. The meter was initially fixed in the house of one Veeran and since that house was demolished, it was shifted to the adjacent house of Ajayan, who is the brother of Veeran. It is submitted that the shifting of the meter was reported and it was due to the failure of the Electricity Board Authorities to initiate appropriate action that the unfortunate incident had happened. It is further submitted that the role of the applicant is extremely limited and the allegation that the electrification was done with his knowledge is not true. It is further

¶25

B.A.No.2359 of 2018 3

¶26

submitted that the accused Nos. 1 to 3 have been released on bail and while granting bail to the 1^st accused, this Court had observed that the investigation has been completed.

¶27

5.The learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer.

¶28

6.I have considered the submissions advanced and have gone through the materials and records. It appears that the mischief was committed by the accused Nos.1 to 3. They have already been enlarged on bail. Insofar as the allegations against the applicant herein are concerned, it does not appear to me that his custodial interrogation is required.

¶29

In the result, this application will stand allowed. The applicant shall appear before the investigation officer within ten days from today and shall undergo interrogation. Thereafter, if he is proposed to be arrested, he shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum. The above order shall be subject to the following conditions:

¶30

i)The applicant shall co-operate with the investigation and shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Saturdays between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m., for two months or till final report is filed, whichever is earlier.

¶31

ii)The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make

¶32

B.A.No.2359 of 2018 4

¶33

any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/ her from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer.

¶34

iii)The applicant shall not commit any similar offence while on bail.

¶35

In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the jurisdictional Court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation, if any, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law.

¶36

Sd/-

¶37

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., JUDGE

¶38

IAP //True Copy\

¶39

P.A to Judge

Binumon @ Mani v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Binumon @ Mani v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pushpangadan Vs State of Kerala

Saifudheen Vs State of Kerala

Devadas P.K Vs State of Kerala

K.P. Preejith Vs State of Kerala

Shajahan Vs State of Kerala

Vinil Kumar Vs State of Kerala