Petitioners are accused in Crime No.559 of 2014 of the Kumily Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 379 and 381 read with Sec.34 of the Indian Penal Code, apprehend arrest and has filed this application. 2. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the application.
It is submitted that according to the de facto complainant who is the Manager of the Plantation where the petitioners are working, about 8 months before filing the private complaint, the petitioners cut and removed a few trees worth Rs.1.5 lakhs.
3. Learned counsel submitted that the allegations are not true. It is submitted that version of the de facto complainant who is Manager of the Plantation that he learned about alleged cutting and removal of the trees only after 8 months of the incident is unbelievable. There was dispute between the petitioners and the management regarding wages. The petitioners are falsely implicated.
4. Having regard to the circumstances of the case I am satisfied that custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not required. Hence I am inclined to grant relief.
Application is allowed as under:
(i) Petitioners shall surrender before the Officer investigating Crime No.559 of 2014 of the Kumily Police station on 27.06.2014 at 10.00 am for interrogation.
(ii) In case interrogation of the petitioners is not completed that day, it is open to the investigating Officer to direct presence of the petitioners on any other day/days and time 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 learned magistrate shall release the petitioners on bail on their executing bond for Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) each with two 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 investigating Officer on every Saturday between 3.00 and 5.00 p. for a period of two months or until filing of the final report, whichever is earlier.
(b) Petitioners shall report to the investigating Officer as and when required for interrogation.
(c) Petitioners shall not get involved any offence during the period of this bail.
(d) Petitioners shall not intimidate or influence the witnesses.
(v) In case the petitioner violates any of conditions (a) to (d), it is open to the investigating Officer to move the learned magistrate for cancellation of the bail as held in P.K.Shaji v. State of Kerala (AIR 2006 SC 100).
THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE.
vsv