Petitioner is the first accused in Crime No.15 of 2014 of the Neyyattinkara Police Station for the offences punishable under Section 143, 144, 147, 148, 452, 323, 427, 294(b), 506 (ii) r/w Sections 149 of the Indian Penal Code, apprehends arrest and has filed the application.
2. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the application. It is submitted that on 30.12.2013 at about 10.00 p.m. and again on 01.01.2014 an unlawful assembly consisting of the petitioner trespassed into the Aruvipuram Madam bearing deadly weapons like iron rod, voluntarily caused hurt and damaged articles causing loss to the Madam. They threatened the employee.
3. Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner and others are falsely implicated. It is submitted that since the nearby river was polluted on account of waste discharged from the Madam, the local people preferred complaint based on which the Police registered Annexure-1 F.I.R in Crime No.1716 of 2013. My attention is also drawn to Annexure-2 Mahazar prepared by the Police in connection with that case where, there is reference to discharge of waste from even the latrine to the river. The Police informed the local authority about the said act. The Madam, enraged at that has falsely implicated the petitioner and others.
4. Learned counsel for the de facto complainant has opposed the application. It is submitted that on two occasions the petitioner and others trespassed into the Madam and committed mischief when the Madam was making arrangements for pilgrimage to Sivagiri. It is also submitted that the petitioner is understood be involved in other case (which the learned Senior Advocate has denied on instruction given to him).
5. On hearing both sides, it is revealed that use of iron rod is attributed to the 6th accused in the case. So far as the petitioner is concerned, he is alleged to be a member of the unlawful assembly.
6. Having regard to the relevant circumstances, I am inclined to think that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required. Hence I am inclined to grant relief to the petitioner subject to conditions protecting the interest of the de facto complainant as well.
Application is allowed as under:
(i) Petitioner shall surrender before the Officer investigating Crime No.15 of 2014 of the Neyyattinkara Police Station on 17.06.2014 at 10 a.m for interrogation.
(ii) In case interrogation is not completed that day, it is open to the officer investigating the case to direct presence of the petitioner on other day/days and time as may be specified by him which the petitioner shall comply.
(iii) Petitioner shall co-operate with investigation of the case.
(iv) In case arrest of the petitioner is recorded, he shall be produced before the jurisdictional magistrate the same day.
(v) On such production the petitioner shall be released on bail (if not required to be detained otherwise) on his executing bond for Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty 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.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) in a Nationalized Bank in his name initially 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 and he is made liable to pay compensation such compensation to the extent possible could be realized from the amount in deposit.
(d) 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.
(e) Petitioner shall report to the officer investigating the case as and when required for interrogation.
(f) Petitioner shall not, during the period of this bail get involved in any offence.
(g) Petitioner shall not intimidate or influence the witnesses.
(vi) It is made clear that in case any of condition Nos. (d) to (g) 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