Anto Augustine vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 19470 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                  PRESENT
                 THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V.
   THURSDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 25TH BHADRA, 1943
                      BAIL APPL. NO. 6787 OF 2021
        CRIME NO.466/2016 OF MEENANGADI POLICE STATION, WAYANAD
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CMP 2194/2021 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
                OF FIRST CLASS, SULTHANBATHERY, WAYANAD
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 AND 2:

    1       ANTO AUGUSTINE
            AGED 33 YEARS
            S/O.LATE AUGUSTINE, MOONGANANIYIL HOUSE,
            VAZHAVATTA P.O., WAYANAD 673 122

    2       JOSEKUTTY AUGUSTINE
            AGED 40 YEARS
            S/O.LATE AUGUSTINE, MOONGANANIYIL HOUSE,
            VAZHAVATTA P.O., WAYANAD-673 122

            BY ADVS.
            M.P.ASHOK KUMAR
            BINDU SREEDHAR
            ASIF N



RESPONDENT/STATE:

            STATE OF KERALA
            REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
            ERNAKULAM -682 031


     THIS    BAIL   APPLICATION   HAVING    COME   UP   FOR   ADMISSION   ON
16.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 BAIL APPL. NO. 6787 OF 2021

                                     2

                                ORDER

Application for regular bail.

Petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.466/2016 of

Meenangadi Police Station registered for the offences punishable

under Sections 308 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, have moved

this application for their release on bail.

2. The prosecution case is that on 01.09.2016 at about

21.30 hours, the defacto complainant was travelling in his bike

bearing registration No.KL-33 A 518 through a public road. At that

time these petitioners along with their men chased his bike in a car

and attempted to hit him with the intention to cause his death. But

some how or other the defacto complainant swerved the bike and

so his life was saved.

3. These petitioners are in custody since 07.08.2021.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners, has raised a plea

of false implication. It is further pointed out though the alleged

incident was on 01.09.2016, they have approached this Court with BAIL APPL. NO. 6787 OF 2021

a writ petition as they were falsely implicated in the case. So there

was an order from this Court restraining the arrest of these

petitioners for a period of three weeks. The said order was not

extended. But in this case they have not committed any offence as

alleged by the prosecution. In fact, the defacto complainant, who

was riding his motor cycle on seeing these petitioners in a hurry

turned his motor cycle and he lost control and fell down and

sustained some minor injuries. But these petitioners have

absolutely no role in causing injuries to the defacto complainant.

But they are undergoing unnecessary incarceration for the last one

month.

5. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, there was

some revenue recovery proceedings against these petitioners. The

defacto complainant is a person, who aided the officials to complete

the proceedings. So these petitioners were entertaining enmity

towards the defacto complainant and so to wreak vengeance upon

him they have chased him in their car while he was travelling in his

motor cycle and thus the incident happened. Now the investigation

of the case is over and charge sheet has been submitted before the BAIL APPL. NO. 6787 OF 2021

jurisdictional court on 31.08.2021.

6. Though these petitioners are involved in some other

criminal cases, as the investigation of this case is over and charge

sheet has been filed, I find that further detention of these

petitioners are not necessary for the investigating agency in this

case. Therefore, these petitioners can be released on bail subject to

the following conditions:

(i) The petitioners shall be released on bail on their

executing a bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees

one lakh only) each with two solvent sureties for the

like sum each to the satisfaction of the court having

jurisdiction.

(ii) They shall not directly or indirectly, make any

inducement, threat or promise to any person

acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade

him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any

police officer or tamper with the evidence.

(iii) They shall not commit any offence while on bail.

BAIL APPL. NO. 6787 OF 2021

In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the learned

Magistrate is empowered to cancel the bail in accordance with the

law.

Sd/-

SHIRCY V.

JUDGE mpm