IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH MARCH 2008 / 29TH PHALGUNA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 1788 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.210 OF 2008 OF KOLLAM EAST POLICE STATION PETITIONER:ACCUSED ---------------------------- MOHANDAS, S/O. CHELLAN, SATHY BHAVANIL, SURABHY NAGAR-99, AYATHIL CHERI, VADAKKEVILA VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.RAJIT SRI.M.L.SURESH KUMAR RESPONDENTS: ------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.U.NAZAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ B.A.No.1788 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of March, 2008 ORDER Application for regular bail. Petitioner is the 1st accused. Altogether there are 2 accused persons now. The accused face allegations under Section 302 r/w 34 I.P.C. Both the accused persons are autorickshaw drivers. The deceased had come to the autorickshaw stand in an inebriate condition. There was a quarrel and altercation. He is alleged to have suffered injuries at the scene of the crime. He fell down. He was removed to the hospital. He breathed his last on 27.02.08 the incident having taken place on 14.02.08. Initially the crime was alleged raising allegations against two other individuals. Later in the course of investigation, the petitioner along with another has been arrayed as accused. Such other has already been granted regular bail by the Sessions Court. The petitioner continues in custody from 29.02.08, on which date he was arrested. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent. The materials clearly show that the petitioner had helped to carry the deceased who had suffered B.A.No.1788 of 2008 2 injuries to the hospital in his autorickshaw. He was never the aggressor. False and vexatious allegations are now being raised against the petitioner. The petitioner, who has remained in custody from 29.02.08, may now be enlarged on bail, it is prayed. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor does not oppose the application. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the materials clearly show that the petitioner had taken the trouble of bringing the injured to the hospital after the incident. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the State does not, in these circumstances, want to oppose the application for regular bail filed by the petitioner who has been remaining in custody from 29.02.08 and appropriate conditions may be imposed, it is prayed. 4. Having considered all the relevant inputs, I am persuaded to agree that this is a fit case where the discretion under Section 439 Cr.P.C can be invoked in favour of the petitioner who has remained in custody from 29.02.08. In the absence of opposition, it is not necessary for me to advert to facts in any greater detail in this order. 5. In the result, this application is allowed. The petitioner shall be released on bail on the following terms and conditions. B.A.No.1788 of 2008 3 i) The petitioner shall execute a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate; ii) The petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation before the Investigating Officer between 10 a.m and 12 noon on all Mondays and Fridays for a period of three months and thereafter as and when directed by the Investigating Officer in writing to do so. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-