Santosh K.V vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 13932 Ker

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                      PRESENT

                        THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARIPAL

               TUESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JULY 2021 / 15TH ASHADHA, 1943

                            BAIL APPL. NO. 3934 OF 2021

    AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMC 760/2021 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS

                              COURT,THALASSERY, KANNUR

PETITIONER:

               SANTOSH K.V.
               AGED 46 YEARS
               SON OF KRISHNAN K.V., KODUR HOUSE, MADAKAMPOYIL, KODANNUR,
               PERINGOME P.O., PAYYANNUR TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670 307.
               BY ADVS.
               C.MURALIKRISHNAN (PAYYANUR)
               ABRAHAM GEORGE JACOB


RESPONDENTS:

     1         STATE OF KERALA
               REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA -
               682031.
     2         STATION HOUSE OFFICER
               PERINGOME POLICE STATION, PERINGOME P.O., PAYYANNUR TALUK, KANNUR
               DISTRICT, PIN - 670 307.

OTHER PRESENT:

               PP -SMT. SREEJA V.


      THIS     BAIL   APPLICATION     HAVING    COME     UP    FOR   ADMISSION    ON
06.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 Bail Appl.No.3934 OF 2021                  2




                                   ORDER

This is an application filed under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.

Petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.152/2021 of Peringome Police

Station registered alleging offence punishable under Sections 324 and 308 of

the I.P.C.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, in fact it

was the defacto complainant, who is a habitual offender, the assailant, for

attacking the petitioner Crime No.151/2021, alleging offence under Sections

341, 323, 294(b) of the I.P.C. has been registered against him. The place and

time of commission of both the crimes are one and the same. The petitioner

does not have any criminal antecedents.

3. The allegation against the petitioner is that he had attacked

the defacto complainant with a wooden piece and caused him injuries. In the

nature of the allegations such a weapon of offence is liable to be recovered.

The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the weapon has already been

recovered. In the circumstances custodial interrogation of the petitioner is

not warranted.

Thus, the petitioner shall be at liberty to surrender before the

Investigating Officer within ten days from today and will make himself

available for interrogation; in the event of arrest, he shall be released on bail

on executing bond for Rs.50,000/- (fifty thousand rupees only)with two

solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Investigating

Officer; he shall co-operate with the investigation, shall not try to contact or

influence the witnesses or tamper with evidence and shall not involve in any

crime during the period on bail.

Bail application is allowed as above.

Sd/-

K. HARIPAL JUDGE RMV/06/07/2021