Allowed

Shaji v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC15 Oct 2009Bail Appl./4488/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala considered an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC filed by three accused persons. The court granted bail to two petitioners who complied with prior directions, imposing specific conditions, while dismissing the application for the third petitioner who failed to appear.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted to two petitioners subject to conditions including reporting, interrogation availability, and a bond of Rs. 15,000; application dismissed regarding the third petitioner.

Shaji Vs State of Kerala — Anticipatory Bail | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 15TH OCTOBER 2009 / 23RD ASWINA 1931

¶4

Bail Appl..No. 4488 of 2009() -----------------------------------------------CRMP.465/2009 of DISTRICT COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA CRIME NO.308/2009 OF ADOOR POLICE STATION.

¶5

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 2 -4:

¶6

¶7

SHAJI, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O.KASSIM RAWTHER VADAKKETHALAKKAL, THEKKETUNDIL ADIKKATTUKULANGARA MURI, PALAMEL VILLAGE, NOORANADU.

¶8

SALAM, AGED 29 YEARS, S/O.SALIM, CHAMAKKALAVILAYIL, ADIKKATTUKULANGARA MURI, PALAMEL VILLAGE, NOORANADU.

¶9

SHAJI, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.ABDUL KHADERM, PEEDIKAYIL HOUSE, ADIKKATTUKULANGARA MURI, PALAMEL VILLAGE, NOORANADU.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI. K.SHAJ

¶11

SRI.L.RAJ MOHAN

¶12

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶13

¶14

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶15

SRI. M.S. BREEZ, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶16

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

K.T. SANKARAN, J.

¶18

B.A. No.4488 of 2009

¶19

Dated this the 15^th day of October, 2009

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438

¶22

of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners are accused Nos.2 to 4 in Crime No.308/2009 of Adoor Police Station.

¶23

The offences alleged against the petitioners are under

¶24

Sections 332 and 427 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶25

When the Bail Application came up for hearing on 16/9/2009, the following order was passed:

¶26

“ After having heard the counsel for the

¶27

petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor, I am of the view that an opportunity should be afforded to the petitioners to appear before the Investigating Officer. There will be a direction to the petitioners to appear before the Investigation officer on 29^th and 30^th September, 2009 at 9A.M.

Post on 5/10/2009.

B.A. No.4488/ 2009

It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor

¶32

that the petitioners will not be arrested until further orders.”

¶33

The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioners 1 and 2, who are accused Nos. 2 and 3 (Shaji, S/o. Kassim Rawther and Salam, S/o. Salim) have complied with the directions in the order dated 16/9/2009. It is also submitted that the 3^rd petitioner, namely, Shaji, S/o. Abdul Khader did not comply with the directions. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Bail Application is not pressed in so far as it relates to the 3^rd petitioner. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that petitioners 1 and 2 have complied with the directions.

¶34

Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the offence, the injury sustained and other circumstances, I am of the view that anticipatory bail can be granted to petitioners 1 and 2. There will be a direction that in the event of the arrest of petitioners 1 and 2, the officer in charge of the police station shall release them on bail on their executing bond for Rs.15,000/- each with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the officer concerned,

¶35

B.A. No.4488/ 2009

¶36

¶37

subject to the following conditions:

¶38

A) Petitioners 1 and 2 shall report before the investigating officer between 9 A.M and 11 A.M. on all alternate Mondays for a period of two months.

¶39

B) Petitioners 1 and 2 shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required;

¶40

C) Petitioners 1 and 2 shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence.

¶41

D) Petitioners 1 and 2 shall not commit any offence or indulge in any prejudicial activity while on bail.

¶42

E) In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, the bail shall be liable to be cancelled.

¶43

Accordingly, the Bail Application is dismissed in so far as it relates to the 3^rd Petitioner (Accused No.4) and it is allowed, in the manner indicated above, in so far as it relates to Petitioners 1 and 2 (Accused Nos. 2 and 3).

¶44

K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE

¶45

scm

Shaji v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaji v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anitha Razak Vs State

Sulaiman Vs State of Kerala

Sajeev M., S/O.Madhu Vs the S.I of Police, Attingal Police Stati

Sankar Ram T. Vs State of Kerala

P.a.Thomas Vs State of Kerala and Another

Francis Vs State of Kerala