HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P.BHAVADASAN, J
MANIKANDAN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Bail Appl. 8451 2013
Bail - Criminal Law - IPC Section List: [447, 341, 323, 324, 294(b), 354, 506(I)] - The court balanced the need for fairness in bail proceedings with the validity of allegations, ultimately allowing bail under conditions while noting the contentious nature of Section 354 IPC.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, accused in a criminal case, claimed innocence against allegations of assault and trespass. A counter-case was registered with similar charges, leading to a contentious legal scenario regarding bail eligibility.
Issues: Whether the petitioner should be granted bail despite serious allegations including the potential misuse of Section 354 IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court leaned towards granting bail based on the conflicting nature of allegations and the existence of a counter-case, coupled with the stipulation regarding the legitimacy of claims made under Section 354 IPC.
Final Decision: Bail granted under specified conditions.
O R D E R
The petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.2596/2013 of Vadakkencherry Police Station who is alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Sections 447 , 341, 323, 324, 294(b), 354 and 506(I) IPC . The allegation against the petitioner is that on 21.11.2013 at about 7 p.m, he trespassed into the house of the de facto complainant and attacked him and when the wife of the de facto complainant came to his rescue, she too was attacked.
2. The petitioner would say that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated. According to him, the incident has not occurred as alleged. It is also pointed out that a counter case has been registered with regard to the same incident and the offences shown in the counter case are under Sections 341 , 323, 324 IPC etc. The petitioner would say that he has not committed any act as alleged.
B.A. No.8451/2013 2
3. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the petition and pointed out that the investigation has only just commenced. 4. After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Public Prosecutor and also after having perused the records, though it may not be possible to say that the petitioner is totally innocent, there seems to be some substance in the complaint that Section 354 IPC has been deliberately incorporated to see that the petitioner is denied bail. On going through the records, it is difficult to understand how is attracted. Whatever that be, considering the fact that there is a counter case also and that the incident might not have occurred as alleged, the application is allowed on the following conditions:
i) The petitioner shall surrender before the Investigating Officer on or before 08.01.2014 who, after interrogation, shall produce him before the Court concerned, which court, on application for bail being moved by the petitioner, shall release him on bail on his executing bond for a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the Court concerned.
B.A. No.8451/2013 3 ii) The Court concerned shall ensure the identity of the sureties and also the veracity of the tax receipts produced by them.
iii) The petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer on every Wednesday between 9 a.m and
10 a.m until further orders.
iv) The petitioner shall not tamper or attempt to tamper with the evidence or influence or try to influence the witness.
v) If any of the condition is violated, the bail granted shall stand cancelled and the Court concerned, on being satisfied of the said fact, may take such steps as are available to it in law.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.