Kerala High Court
Bail Appl./7515/2008 of HAKKIM Vs STATE OF KERALA on 30 December 2008
HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN TUESDAY, THE 30TH DECEMBER 2008 / 9TH POUSHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 7515 of 2008 (CRIME NO.942 OF 2008 OF KAYAMKULAM POLICE STATION) PETITIONERS: -------------------- 1. HAKKIM, THATTARUPARAMBIL HOUSE, PALLIPPATTUMURI,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN
TUESDAY, THE 30TH DECEMBER 2008 / 9TH POUSHA 1930
Bail Appl..No. 7515 of 2008
(CRIME NO.942 OF 2008 OF KAYAMKULAM POLICE STATION)
PETITIONERS:
--------------------
1. HAKKIM, THATTARUPARAMBIL HOUSE,
PALLIPPATTUMURI, THRIKUNNAPPUZHA VILLAGE.
2. KUNJUMOL, THATTARUPARAMBIL HOUSE,
PALLIPPATTUMURI, THRIKKUNNAPUZHA VILLAGE.
3. NASEERA, THATTARUPARAMBIL HOUSE,
PALLIPPATTUMURI, THRIKKUNNAPPUZHA VILLAGE.
4. SHAJI, THATTARUPARAMBIL HOUSE,
PALLIPPATTUMURI, THRIKKUNNAPPUZHA VILLAGE.
BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE(PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL)
SRI.A.R.DILEEP
SMT.SURYA SASI
RESPONDENTS:
-----------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KAYAMKULAM.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR.
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 30/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
V. K.MOHANAN, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Bail Application No. 7515 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 30[th] day of December, 2008.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
O R D E R
Petitioners are accused in Crime No.942 of 2008 ofKayamkulam Police Station for the offences punishable underSections 498A, 294(b), 341, 506, 323 read with Section 34 of theIndian Penal Code. The main allegation against the petitioners isthat on 15.11.2008 at about 8.45 p.m., while the de factocomplainant was proceeding in a car after returning from theThrikkunnappuzha Police Station, the accused intercepted the defacto complainant, pulled her out from the car by calling obscenewords and assaulted her causing injury to her. Learned counsel forthe petitioners submits that the de facto complainant is residing withsome other persons and hence, they are innocent.
2. Learned Public Prosecutor, opposing the petition foranticipatory bail, submits that the complaint was filed before thePolice Station by the first petitioner who is the husband of the defacto complainant in the present case and when the de factocomplainant refused to go along with the first accused, she waschased and intercepted and the first accused caused injury to her.Going by the records, it appears to me that the main allegations are against the first and fourth petitioners. The petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 areladies.
3. Considering the factual circumstances involved in the case, I amof the view that anticipatory bail can be granted to petitioners 2 and 3 whoare accused 2 and 3 in the above crime. Accordingly, a direction is issuedto the officer-in-charge of the Kayamkulam Police Station to release thepetitioners 2 and 3 on bail for a period of one month in the event of theirarrest in connection with the above case on each of them executing a bondfor Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with two solventsureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction to the said officer and subject to the following conditions:
1. Petitioners 2 and 3 shall report before theInvestigating Officer between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m. on allWednesdays.
2. Petitioners 2 and 3 shall make themselves availablefor interrogation as and when required by theInvestigating Officer.for interrogation as and when required by theInvestigating Officer.
3. Petitioners 2 and 3 shall not influence or intimidatethe prosecution witnesses nor shall they attempt totamper with the evidence for the prosecution.
4. Petitioners 2 and 3 shall not commit any offencewhile on bail.while on bail.
5. Petitioners 2 and 3 shall surrender before theMagistrate concerned and seek regular bail in themeanwhile.Magistrate concerned and seek regular bail in themeanwhile.
-:3:-
If the petitioners 2 and 3 commit breach of any of the aboveconditions, the bail granted to them shall be liable to be cancelled. Theprayer for anticipatory bail in respect of petitioners 1 and 4 are rejected.This application is partly allowed.
Mbs/
V.K.MOHANAN,
JUDGE