Back
2013 Supreme(Online)(KER) 16812
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P.S.GOPINATHAN, J
KUNHALANKUTTY – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Bail Appl./838/2013
SRI.U.K.DEVIDAS, SRI.V.S.SREEJITH
The court established the principle of granting bail under specific conditions to balance the rights of the accused with the need for a thorough investigation.
Headnote:
Bail - Criminal Proceedings - IPC Sections 341, 323, 324, 326, 308 - The court allowed bail for the accused due to familial relations and temporary safe conditions, highlighting the importance of ensuring rights while preventing witness tampering.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, accused in separate cases involving violent offences under the IPC, sought bail apprehending arrest and claimed false implication in a family dispute.
Finding of the Court:
The court noted that both parties had inflicted injuries using weapons, yet found that the familial nature of the dispute warranted conditional bail.
Issues: Whether bail should be granted to the petitioners apprehending false charges and potential abuse by law enforcement.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the balance between the rights of the accused and the integrity of the investigation, allowing bail but imposing reporting and non-interference conditions.
Final Decision: Bail granted with conditions.
O R D E R
Petitioners in B.A.No.838 of 2013 are the accused in Crime No.69 of 2013 of Tanur Police Station for offences under Sections 341 , 323, 324 and 308 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code . Petitioners in B.A.No.1160 of 2013 are the accused in Crime No.68 of 2013 of Tanur Police Station for offences under , 323, 324, 326 and 308 read with 34 of the .
2. Apprehending arrest, detention and torture at the hands of the Investigating Officer, these petitions are filed seeking an order to release the petitioners on bail in the event of arrest, with a plea that the petitioners were falsely implicated.
3. Having heard either side, I find that the cases are case and counter case. Both parties had used deadly weapons and that the defacto complainant in Crime No.68 of 2013 had sustained even a grievous hurt. However, taking note that the petitioners are related and family dispute is the basis for the offences alleged, I find that it would be appropriate to release the petitioners on bail on conditions after arrest and interrogation.
In the result, these petitions are allowed and there would be order directing the petitioners to surrender before the Investigating Officer within a week. The Investigating Officer after arrest, interrogation and recovery, if any, shall produce the petitioners before the Magistrate having jurisdiction so as to enable the petitioners to apply for regular bail. The learned Magistrate on such application, shall release the petitioners on bail on executing a bail bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for like amount to his satisfaction subject to the following conditions.
1. Petitioners shall report before the Investigating Officer for interrogation at 10 A.M. on every Mondays for a period of three months or till the final report is filed, which ever event occurs first.
2. Petitioners shall not make any promise, inducement or threat to any person who is likely to be acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the investigating officer or to the court. 3. Petitioners shall not involve in any crime. In the event, the petitioners are involved in any crime, this order granting bail would stand cancelled.
4. In the event, the petitioners fail to appear before the Investigating Officer within a week the Investigating Officer is at liberty to arrest the petitioners. P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE.
