Petitioner is accused in Crime No.169 of 2014 of the Anchuthengu Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 452, 294(b), 341, 324 of the Indian Penal Code, apprehends arrest and has filed this application.
2. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the application. It is submitted that on 07.04.2014 at about 07.30 p.m. the petitioner, on account of previous enmity trespassed into the shop of the de facto complainant, voluntarily caused hurt to him with a reaper and damaged articles in the shop causing loss of Rs.7,000/-.
3. Learned counsel submitted that the allegations are not true.
4. On hearing both sides, it is revealed that the reaper (allegedly) used by the petitioner is seized. Petitioner is not reported to be involved in any other case from the Anchuthengu Police Station. In the circumstances, I am inclined to think that the petitioner could be granted relief as custodial interrogation is not required but subject to conditions and protecting interest of the de facto complainant also.
Application is allowed as under:
(i) Petitioner shall surrender before the officer investigating Crime No.169 of 2014 of the Anchuthengu Police Station on 07.07.2014 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 petitioner on other day/days and time as may be specified by him which the petitioner shall comply.
(iii) In case arrest of the petitioner is recorded, he shall be produced before the jurisdictional magistrate same day.
(iv) On such production the petitioner shall be released on bail (if not required to be detained otherwise) on his executing bond for 15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned magistrate and subject to the following conditions:
(a) One of the sureties shall be a close relative of the petitioner.
(b) Petitioner shall deposit of Rs.7,000/-(Rupees seven thousand only) in a Nationalized/Scheduled Bank/Co-operative Society in his name initally for a period of two years (renewable as per order of the learned magistrate) and produce the FD receipt before the learned magistrate while executing the bail bond.
(c) In case the case is decided against the petitioner or he is made liable to pay compensation to the defacto complainat, such compensation to the extent possible could be realized from the amount in deposit.
(d) Petitioner shall report to the Investigating Officer as and when required for interrogation.
(e) Petitioner shall not get involved in any offence during the period of this bail.
(f) Petitioner shall not intimidate or influence the witnesses.
(v) In case the petitioner violates any of condition Nos.
(d) to (f), it is open to the investigating officer to move the learned magistrate for cancellation of the bail as held in P.K Shaji Vs. State of Kerala (AIR 2006 SC 100).
Sd/-
THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE.
AS /True Copy/ P.A. to Judge