BAIL APPL No. 3135 of 2012 · Kerala High Court
Case at a glance
- Bench
- N K BALAKRISHNAN
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 44.The 2nd and 3rd petitioners shall surrender before B.A.3135/20122the Investigating Officer within 10 days from today. Afterinterrogation the accused shall be produced before the learned Magistrate. When applied for bail by the accused, the learned Magistrate can, considering the nature of the case, grant bail…
Judgment
N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, J.================B.A. No. 3135 of 2012======================Dated this the 22nd day of May, 2012ORDER Petitioners 1 and 2 are the 1st and 2nd accused and third petitioner is the 6th accused in Crime no.324/2012 of East Kallada police station. The offences alleged against them are under sections 143, 147, 148, 452, 324, 323, 326read with 149 of IPC. The third petitioner is stated to be themother of the first accused. The incident took place on19.04.2012 at about 6PM, it is alleged.
The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is a boundary dispute between the complainant on one hand and the accused on the other hand. There was an altercation concerning the same. It is alleged that A1 hit the complainant with a stone causing nosel bone fracture.
Considering all the aspects the following directions are issued:
The 2nd and 3rd petitioners shall surrender before B.A.3135/20122the Investigating Officer within 10 days from today. Afterinterrogation the accused shall be produced before the learned Magistrate. When applied for bail by the accused, the learned Magistrate can, considering the nature of the case, grant bail to the petitioners but on the following conditions:a.The accused shall execute a bond forRs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court. If in case the Magistrate has any doubt about the genuineness or correctness of the tax receipts produced by the sureties, the learned Magistrate can insist for production of the attested photo copies of the original title deeds of the sureties.b.The accused shall make themselves available for interrogation by the InvestigatingOfficer and that they should appear before the Investigating Officer on all Mondays and Fridaysbetween 9.30 AM to 11.30 AM until further B.A.3135/20123orders.c.The accused shall produce his/theiroriginal passports before the learned jurisdictionalMagistrate.
If they are not having any valid passport, they should file an affidavit regarding the same before the Magistrate.d.The accused will also file an affidavit that they will abide by all the conditions as mentioned above and that they will not commit any offence similar to the offence involved in this case and that they shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so asto dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with theevidence.e.The accused and the sureties shall not leave the jurisdiction of the concerned Courtwithout the prior permission of the learnedMagistrate. B.A.3135/20124f.The learned Magistrate will also ensure the identity of the sureties by insisting production of electoral photo identity cards/Driving licenceetc. Request for anticipatory bail moved by A1 is rejected.
If he surrenders before the Police/InvestigatingOfficer, after interrogation the petitioner shall be produced before the Magistrate and if the petitioner applies for bail the learned Magistrate will dispose of the same in accordance with law without delay, but after hearing the learned APP as well and also after perusal of the case diary, if so required and also after considering the facts and circumstances of the case. If the Investigating Officer files application for police custody for further interrogation that shall also be considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with law.N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGEdas
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.