Allowed

Mani v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC18 Jan 2022Bail Appl./110/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two bail applications filed by accused Mani in Malappuram District were heard jointly. The court granted bail subject to conditions including furnishing bonds, ensuring appearance before investigating officer weekly, deposit of sum, and not interfering with witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted subject to execution of separate bonds of Rs.50,000 each with two sureties, reporting once a week, deposit of Rs.5,000, prohibition on interference with inquiry and witnesses, and conditi

Mani Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 18^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 28TH POUSHA, 1943

¶5

BAIL APPL. NO. 110 OF 2022

¶6

CRIME NO.2/2022 OF POTHUKALLU POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

MANI AGED 41 YEARS PARAKKAL HOUSE, KUNIPALA, POTHUKALLU AMSOM, BHOODAN COLONY P.O., MALAPPURAM, PIN – 679 334. BY ADV. C.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN – 682 031. 2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, POTHUKALLU POLICE STATION, BHOODAN COLONY P.O., NILAMBUR TALUK, MALAPP POTHUKALLU POLICE STATION, BHOODAN COLONY P.O., NILAMBUR TALUK,PIN – 679 334. BY SMT. SEETHA S (SR.PP)

¶11

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.01.2022, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..126/2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶12

BAIL APPL. NOS. 110 AND 126 OF 2022

¶13

¶14

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶15

PRESENT

¶16

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.

¶17

TUESDAY, THE 18^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 28TH POUSHA, 1943

¶18

BAIL APPL. NO. 126 OF 2022

¶19

CRIME NO.1/2022 OF POTHUKALLU POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM

¶20

DISTRICT

¶21

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶22

MANI

¶23

AGED 41 YEARS S/O.KRISHNANKUTTY, PARAKKAL HOUSE, KUNIPALA, POTHUKALLU AMSOM, BHOODAN COLONY P.O., NILAMBUR TALUK,

¶24

MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN – 679 334.

¶25

BY ADV. C.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL

¶26

RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT:

¶27

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM, KOCHI – 31.

¶28

2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER POTHUKALLU POLICE STATION, BHOODAN COLONY P.O., NILAMBUR TALUK MALAPPURAM, PIN – 679 334.

¶29

BY SRI.T.R.RANJITH (SR.PP)

¶30

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.01.2022, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..110/2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶31

¶32

BAIL APPL. NOS. 110 AND 126 OF 2022

¶33

ORDER

¶34

These are the applications for regular bail.

¶35

The petitioner in these bail applications is one and the same person. Two cases have been registered against him by the Pothukallu Police Station, Malappuram district, as Crime Nos.1 of 2022 and 2 of 2022. The allegation against the petitioner in Crime No.2 of 2022 is that on 31.12.2021, the petitioner attacked the defacto complainant and caused injury to him by hitting him on his head with a soda bottle and thereby he committed offences under Sections 451, 324, 308 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code. When the petitioner was called to the police station in connection with the complaint given by the de-facto complainant in Crime No.2 of 2022, the petitioner created violent scenes in the police station, which led to registration of Crime No.1 of 2022 alleging commission of offences under Section 332 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act. The allegation against the petitioner in Crime No.1 of 2022 was that he attacked a Civil Police Officer by holding his hands and twisting it, causing obstruction of his official duty and also caused certain damage to Government property in the police station.

¶36

¶37

BAIL APPL. NOS. 110 AND 126 OF 2022

¶38

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was some altercation between the petitioner and the de-facto complainant in Crime No.2 of 2022 on account of the fact that the de-facto complainant in Crime No.2 of 2022 was in the habit of dissuading customers coming to meet the petitioner, who is a contractor by profession, by stating that the petitioner should not be entrusted with any work. It is submitted that the de-facto complainant is running a 'c' class shop near the house of the petitioner and whenever possible, he would dissuade customers from meeting or engaging the petitioner. It is submitted that this led to an argument between the petitioner and the de-facto complainant, which ultimately led to the incident relating to registration of Crime No.2 of 2022. It is submitted that no serious injury was caused to the de-facto complainant in that incident. It is submitted that the petitioner is suffering from depression etc and is also a chronic patient suffering from high blood pressure and the petitioner often reacts abnormally while under pressure. It is submitted that, when the petitioner was called upon to attend the police station in connection with the incident which led to registration of Crime No.2 of 2022, the petitioner did not attack the Civil Police Officer and has also not caused any damage to public property. Finally, it is submitted that in both the cases, the

¶39

¶40

BAIL APPL. NOS. 110 AND 126 OF 2022

¶41

petitioner has been in custody from 01.01.2022 and his continued detention is not necessary, considering the nature of the allegations against him.

¶42

The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, would submit with reference to the case records that the allegations against the petitioner in both cases are quite serious. It is submitted that the petitioner destroyed public property worth Rs.5,000/- in the police station and also tried to attack a Civil Police Officer. It is also submitted that the de-facto complainant had suffered an injury on his head owing to attack by the petitioner.

¶43

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the nature of the allegations against the petitioner, I am of the view that the petitioner can be granted bail both in Crime Nos.1 of 2022 and 2 of 2022 of Pothukallu Police Station, Malappuram District, subject to conditions.

¶44

In the result, these bail applications are allowed and it is directed that the petitioner shall be released on bail subject to the following conditions:

¶45

(1) The petitioner shall execute separate bonds for s ums of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) each with two solvent sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the

¶46

¶47

BAIL APPL. NOS. 110 AND 126 OF 2022

¶48

Jurisdictional Court, in Crime No.1 of 2022 and Crime No.2 of 2022 of Pothukallu Police Station, Malappuram District ;

¶49

(2) Petitioner shall report before the investigating officer in Crime Nos.1 of 2022 and 2 of 2022 of Pothukallu Police Station, Malappuram District, on every Saturday at 11.00AM until filing of final report;

¶50

(3) The petitioner shall not attempt to interfere with the investigation or to influence or intimidate the de-facto complainant or any witness in Crime Nos.1 of 2022 and 2 of 2022 of Pothukallu Police Station, Malappuram District;

¶51

(4) The petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.5,000/before the Jurisdictional Court.

¶52

(5) The petitioner shall not involve in any other crime while on bail.

¶53

If any of the aforesaid conditions are violated, the investigating officer in Crime Nos.1 of 2022 and 2 of 2022 of Pothukallu Police Station, Malappuram District, may file an application before the Jurisdictional Court for cancellation of bail.

¶54

Sd/-

¶55

GOPINATH P. JUDGE

¶56

Mani v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mani 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anshif Ashraf Vs State of Kerala

Abijith Vs State of Kerala

Maneesh Vs State of Kerala

Seenapparai.a Vs State of Kerala

Shaheem Vs State of Kerala

Mani Pelayiyil, Vs State of Kerala