Petitioners are accused 3 and 8 in Crime No.557 of 2014 of the Pandalam Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 324, 326, 427 and 307 r/w Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, are in custody from 19.04.2014 and seek bail.
2. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the application. It is submitted that on 17.04.2014 at about 06.30 p.m., the petitioners and others attacked the de facto complainant with iron rod, sword etc., voluntarily caused hurt/grievous hurt, attempted to cause his death and damaged the Autorickshaw. It is submitted that the first petitioner/third accused used sword which is not so far recovered.
3. Learned counsel submits that the allegation against the petitioners are not true and at any rate, they are in custody from 19.04.2014.
4. So far as the first petitioner/third accused is concerned, I am not inclined to allow the request since the weapon (allegedly) used by him is yet to be recovered. But, I am inclined to grant relief to the 2nd petitioner/8th accused, since his further custody is not required.
Application is allowed in part as under:
(I) Request of the first petitioner/third accused in Crime No.557 of 2014 of the Pandalam Police Station for bail is rejected leaving it open to him to move again after the investigation has progressed.
(II) (i) The 2nd petitioner/8th accused is granted bail in Crime No.557 of 2014 of the Pandalam Police Station and shall be released on bail, if not required to be detained otherwise on his executing bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional magistrate and subject to the following conditions:
(a) The 2nd petitioner shall report to the officer investigating the case on every alternate Saturday between 03.00 p.m and 05.00 p.m for a period of two months or until filing of the final report, whichever is earlier.
(b) The 2nd petitioner shall report to the officer investigating the case as and when required for interrogation.
(c) The 2nd petitioner shall not, during the period of this bail get involved in any offence.
(d) The 2nd petitioner shall not intimidate or influence the witnesses.
(ii) It is made clear that in case any of condition Nos. (a) to (d) is violated, it is open to the Investigating Officer to seek cancellation of the bail granted hereby by moving application before the learned magistrate (until committal of the case if any, and thereafter, before the learned Principal Sessions Judge concerned) as held in P.K. Shaji V. State of Kerala (AIR 2006 Supreme Court 100).
Sd/-
THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE.
AS /True Copy/ P.A. to Judge