Kerala High CourtRajendran vs State Of Kerala on 2 March, 2016Author:Sunil ThomasBench:Sunil ThomasIN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                                      PRESENT:

                         THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

             WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF MARCH 2016/12TH PHALGUNA, 1937

                                          Bail Appl..No. 1512 of 2016
                                           -------------------------------------

 CRIME NO. 883/2015 OF NARUVAMOODU POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
                                                          .........

PETITIONER(S)/1ST AND 2ND ACCUSED:
----------------------------------------------------------

        1. RAJENDRAN, AGED 57 YEARS,
            S/O.PADMANABHAN PILLAI PINNAKALA,
            PUTHENVEEDU KULANGARA MIACHEL, TRIVANDRUM.

        2. SREERAJ, AGED 27 YEARS,
            S/O.RAJENDRAN PINNAKALA,
            PUTHENVEEDU KULANGARA MIACHEL, TRIVANDRUM.

            BY ADV. SRI.M.R. SARIN PANICKER

RESPONDENT(S)/STATE/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

        1. STATE OF KERALA,
            REPRESENTED THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
            HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

        2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
            NARUVAMOODU POLICE STATION,
            REPRESENTED THROUGHTHE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
            HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

            BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.R.REMA

            THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
             02-03-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:




msv/



                      SUNIL THOMAS, J.
              ---------------------------------------
                   B.A.No.1512 of 2016
             ----------------------------------------
         Dated this the 2nd day of March, 2016

                            ORDERThe petitioners are the father and son stand

indicted in Crime No.883/2015 of Naravanmoodu Police

Station for offences punishable underSections 294(b),323,452and34of IPC.2. The prosecution alleges that on 30.12.2015

at 4.30 p.m., the accused trespassed into the house of the

de facto complainant and assaulted the de facto

complainant.     Crime was registered and the police is

investigating.3. It appears that the parties are neighbours

and are at logger heads. It is stated that the wife of the

1st petitioner has filed a civil suit against the de facto

complainant.     The daughter of the 1st petitioner has

instituted a private complaint vide Annexure-A1 against

the de facto complainant herein. Even though the learned

counsel contended that the present crime has been

registered against the petitioners herein as a retaliation

for the civil suit filed, the possibility of the Annexure-A1B.A.No.1512 of 2016             2complaint being filed as a sequel to this crime cannot also

be ruled out.      Evidently, the relationship between the

parties is strained. The allegation against the petitioners

herein is to be proved by the oral testimony of the de

facto complainant and the eye witnesses.5. Having regard to these facts, I feel that a

custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not warranted.

Hence, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioners

subject to the following conditions:(a) Each of the petitioner shall appear before

       the Investigating Officer within ten days from

       today     and   shall  undergo     interrogation.Thereafter, if they are proposed to be

       arrested, they shall be released on bail on

       each of the petitioner executing a bond for a

       sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand

       only) with two sureties for the like sum each.(b)       They  shall   appear    before   the

        Investigation Officer on all Mondays between

        9.00 a.m. and 10.00 a.m. for a period of twoB.A.No.1512 of 2016             3months from the date of execution of bond.(c) They shall not trespass into the house of

        the de facto complainant, threaten, coerce or

        intimidate the de facto complainant and the

        witnesses nor shall they interfere in the

        process of investigation.The bail application is allowed.Sd/-SUNIL THOMAS,
                                           JUDGE

AD
                                //TRUE COPY//

                                P.A TO JUDGE