Kerala High Court
Bail Appl./6332/2021 of SANTHOSH B. Vs STATE OF KERALA on 31 December 2021
COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH FRIDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2021 / 10TH POUSHA, 1943 BAIL APPL. NO. 6332 OF 2021 CRIME NO.1910/2021 OF Palode Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram PETITIONER/3RD ACCUSED: SANTHOSH B. AGED 28 YEARS S/O.BABU,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
FRIDAY, THE 31[ST] DAY OF DECEMBER 2021 / 10TH POUSHA, 1943
BAIL APPL. NO. 6332 OF 2021
CRIME NO.1910/2021 OF Palode Police Station, ThiruvananthapuramPETITIONER/3RD ACCUSED:
SANTHOSH B.AGED 28 YEARSS/O.BABU, SANTHOSH BHAVAN, PEPPARA KARIKKAKOM, MEENMUTTY P.O., PALODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.BY ADV LATHEESH SEBASTIAN
RESPONDENT/STATE AND COMPLAINANT:
1STATE OF KERALAREPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM - 682 031.
2STATION HOUSE OFFICERPALODE POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 562
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON31.12.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
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.
ORDER
This is an application filed u/s 438 of Code of CriminalProcedure seeking pre-arrest bail.
2. The petitioner is the accused No.3 in CrimeNo.1910/2021 of Palode Police Station. The offences alleged areunder Sections 3 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and Section11(1)(I) of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960.
3. The prosecution case in short is that 01.08.2021 atabout 9.20 p.m the petitioner along with the remaining accusedlaid explosive in the rubber plantation for trapping the wild boar.The dog of the de-facto complainant consumed the saidexplosive and consequent of the explosion of the explosive whilebiting it, the dog died and thereby committed the offences.
4. Heard both sides and perused the case diary.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted thatthe petitioner is absolutely innocent and he has been falselyimplicated in the present case. He further submitted that thereare no materials to connect the petitioner with the alleged crimeand hence he is entitled to get bail. The learned Public
Prosecutor opposed the bail application. He contended that thealleged incident occurred as a part of the intentional criminalacts of the petitioner and if the petitioner is released on bail atthis stage, it would affect the course of investigation.
6. The case record would show that the accused Nos.1and 2 were already arrested and they were released on bail.The petitioner has no criminal antecedents. The investigation ofthe case is almost over. The recovery has already beeneffected. Considering the allegations levelled against thepetitioner, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner does notappear to be necessary. For all these reasons, the petitioner isentitled to pre-arrest bail on conditions.
In the result, the application is allowed on the followingconditions:-
(i) The petitioner shall be released on bail in the event ofhis arrest on executing a bond for Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees Onelakh only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum each to thesatisfaction of the arresting officer/investigating officer, as thecase may be.
(ii) The petitioner shall fully co-operate with theinvestigation, including subjecting himself to the deemed police custody for the purpose of discovery, if any, as and whendemanded.
(iii) The petitioner shall appear before the investigatingofficer between 10.00 a.m and 11.00 a.m on every Saturdayuntil further orders. The petitioner shall also appear before theinvestigating officer as and when required by him.
(iv) nature while on bail.
The petitioner shall not commit any offence of like
(v) The petitioner shall not make any attempt to contactany of the prosecution witnesses, directly or through any otherperson, or any other way try to tamper with the evidence orinfluence any witnesses or other persons related to theinvestigation.
(vi) The petitioner shall not leave State of Kerala withoutthe permission of the trial Court.
Sd/-
rpk
DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATHJUDGE