IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE11H DAY OF MARCH201420TH PHALGUNA, 1935 Bail Appl..No. 1598 of 2014 () ------------------------------- CRIME NO. 1161/2013 OF PARAPPANGADI POLICE STATION , MALAPPURAM ACCUSED(S)/PETITIONER919: --------------------------- 1. SINEESH KODATH, AGED25YEARS S/O SIVADASAN, KODATH HOSUE, NEDUVA P.O CHERUMANGALAM, PARAPPANAGADI, PARAPPANNANGADI2 UNNIKRISHNAN, AGED26YEARS S/O AYYAPPAN, KALAMPARAMBATH (H), AYODHYA NAGAR (P.O) CHIRAMANGALAM3 SARATHLAL, AGED24YEARS S/O RADHAKRISHNAN, PUTHUKKATTIL (H), AYODHYA NAGAR CHIRAMANGALAM4 PRAJEESH, AGED24YEARS SO KRISHNANKUTTY, PUTHUKKATTIL (H), AODHYA NAGAR CHIRAMAGALAM5 RAJESH, AGED31YEARS S/O VELAYUDHAN, MANNUMPURATH (H), AYODYA NAGAR CHIRAMAGALAM6 NIDHEESH, AGED25YEARS S/O SREEDHARAN, UPPINNIPPURATH (H), AYODHYA NAGAR CHIRAMAGALAM7 NISHANTH AGED34YEARS S/O KRISHNAN, KODATH (H), AYODHYA NAGAR CHIRAMAGALAM8 ARUNKUMAR, AGED24YEARS S/O KRISHNAN MUTHALATH(H), AYODHYA NAGAR CHIRAMANGALAM9 RABHEESH AGED26YEARS S/O RAMAN PALMASSERI, VALPANCHERI (H), KETTUNGAL10 RAJEESH AGED28YEARS S/O CHOOLANKUTTY, KOOTHAMPARAMBIL KETTUNGAL (P-ARAPPANGADI POLICE STATION LIMITED) BY ADV. SMT.M.BINDUDAS RESONDENT/ COMPLAINANT: ----------------------- STATE OF KERALA, RERPESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM68203 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR: ADV SREEJITH THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON1103-2014, ALONG WITH BA. 1615/2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J.
========================= B.A.Nos.1598 and 1615 of 2014 ============================ Dated this the 11th day of March, 2014 ORDER
These applications arise from Crime No.1161 of 2013 of the Parappanangadi Police Station for the offences punishable under Secs.143, 145, 147, 148, 332 and 308 of the Indian Penal Code and Sec.3(1) of the PDPP Act. The former is filed by accused Nos.9 and 11 to 19 while the latter is filed by accused Nos.1, 3 to 7 and 10. They apprehend arrest and seek pre-arrest bail.
2. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the applications. It is submitted that a few persons were arrested in Crime No.1160 of 2013 of the same station for the offence punishable under Sec.511 of 377 r/w Sec.34 of the Penal Code, under provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and while those persons were detained at the Police Station, the petitioners and others assembled there and wanted the police to release the accused in Crime No.1160 of 2013. They pelted stones at the Police Station and attacked the police officials.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners have a different version to say. It is said that Crime No.1161 of 2013 is registered against identifiable persons so that the Sub Inspector could implead B.A.Nos.1598 and 1615 of 2014 2 as accused any person of his choice. The boy who was arrested in Crime No.1160 of 2013 was brutally attacked. People gathered. There was a mediation talk which failed. It is also submitted that there was an agitation about a proposal for acquisition of about 33 Acres of agricultural land by the Government and concerning which some people of the locality filed W.P(C).Nos.30983 of 2013 and 1923 of 2014 and this Court directed the District Collector, Malappuram to consider the grievance of the public. Those who moved against the acquisition are also being falsely implicated in the cases. It is also submitted that on 03.02.2014, the 9th accused got married and under pretext of questioning the 9th accused concerning the marriage, he was summoned to the Police Station and learning that the marriage is validly solemnized, he was impleaded as accused in Crime No.1161 of 2013. It is submitted that the petitioners are not in any way involved in the alleged incident.
4. Even as per the version of the prosecution, the loss caused to the department by pelting of stones is Rs.1,000/- which reveals the magnitude of the attack on the Police Station. So far as the offence under Sec.308 of the Penal Code is concerned, I find from the CD file a copy of wound certificate of one Anil Kumar. The injury noted is 'tenderness'. B.A.Nos.1598 and 1615 of 2014 3 5. Learned Public Prosecutor has pointed out that the case is now being investigated by the Circle Inspector of Police, Tanur. That officer has to look into all aspects of the matter while investigating the case.
6. Having regard to the relevant circumstances, I am inclined to think that custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not required. At the same time, they have to make themselves available for interrogation by the police since identification may also be necessary. Resultantly the applications are allowed as under: (i) Petitioners shall surrender before the Circle Inspector of Police, Tanur who is investigating Crime No.1161 of 2013 of the Parappananagdi Police Station on 18.03.2014 at 10 a.m for interrogation. (ii) In case interrogation is not completed that day, it is open to the officer concerned to direct presence of the petitioners on other day/days and time as may be specified by him which the petitioners shall comply. (iii) In case arrest of the petitioners is recorded, they shall be produced before the jurisdictional magistrate the same day. (iv) On such production the petitioners shall be released on bail (if not required to be detained otherwise) on their bond for `20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand Only) each with two B.A.Nos.1598 and 1615 of 2014 4 sureties each for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned magistrate and subject to the following conditions: (a) Petitioners shall report to the officer investigating Crime No.1161 of 2013 of the Parappananagdi Police Station on all alternate Saturdays between 10a.m and 12p.m for a period of two months or till final report is filed, whichever is earlier. (b) Petitioners shall report to the Investigating Officer as and when required for interrogation. (c) Petitioners shall co-operate with the investigation of the case. (d) Petitioners shall not get involved in any offence during the period of this bail. (e) Petitioners shall not intimidate or influence the witnesses. (f) In case the petitioner violates any of condition Nos.(a) to (e), it is open to the investigating officer to move the learned magistrate (until committal if any, and thereafter before the learned Principal Sessions Judge concerned) for cancellation of the bail as held in P.K Shaji Vs. State of Kerala (AIR2006SC100. Sd/- THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE. Sbna True Copy P A to Judge