Allowed

Prasad & Another v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC16 Oct 2009Bail Appl./4649/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed an anticipatory bail application filed by two accused persons charged with offences under Sections 294(b), 324, and 326 IPC. The court imposed conditions including reporting timelines and restraining witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted subject to conditions including execution of bond with sureties, reporting before investigating officer, and abstaining from influencing witnesses or committing further offen

Prasad & Another Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 16TH OCTOBER 2009 / 24TH ASWINA 1931

¶3

Bail Appl..No. 4649 of 2009() -------------------------------------CRIME NO.185/2009 OF CHITTAR POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA

¶4

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 & 2:

¶5

¶6

PRASAD, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.KARUNAKARAN NAIR, VAZHAYIL HOUSE, KUNNAM, GURUNATHANAMANNU, SEETHATHODU, RANNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶7

SUJA, AGED 35 YEARS, VAZHAYIL HOUSE, KUNNAM, GURUNATHANAMANNU, SEETHATHODU, RANNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.JACOB P.ALEX SRI.JOSEPH P.ALEX

¶9

RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT:

¶10

¶11

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

¶12

SRI. TEKCHAND, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

K.T. SANKARAN, J.

¶15

B.A. No.4649 of 2009

¶16

Dated this the 16^th day of October, 2009

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners are the accused persons in Crime No. 185/2009 of Chittar Police Station, Pathanamthitta.

¶19

The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 294(b), 324 and 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶20

when the Bail Application came up for hearing on 7/9/2009, it was recorded that a case for grant of anticipatory

¶21

bail is clearly made out in so far as the case relates to the second petitioner. Directions were issued to the Public Prosecutor to get instructions with respect to Annexure 1 Discharge Card issued to the first petitioner. Annexure I was relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners to show that the first petitioner had sustained injuries.

¶22

Thereafter, the case was heard on 24/9/2009 and the following order was passed:

¶23

B.A. No.4649 /2009

¶24

¶25

“After having heard the learned counsel for the

¶26

petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor, I am of the view that before disposing of the Bail Application, an opportunity should be given to the petitioners to appear before the investigating officer. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the petitioners to appear before the investigating officer at 9 A.M. on 19^th and 20^th October, 2009.

¶27

Post on 23/10/2009.

¶28

It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioners will not be arrested until further orders in connection with Crime No.185 of 2009 of Chittar Police Station.”

¶29

The learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioners have complied with the directions contained in the order dated 24/9/2009.

¶30

Taking into account the facts and circumstances of

¶31

the case, the nature of the offence and other circumstances, I am of the view that anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioners. There will be a direction that in the event of the

¶32

B.A. No.4649 /2009

¶33

¶34

arrest of the petitioners, 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, subject to the following conditions:

¶35

A) The first petitioner shall report before the investigating officer between 9 A.M and 11 A.M. on all alternate Mondays, till the final report is filed or until further orders;

¶36

B) The petitioners shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required;

¶37

C) The petitioners shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence.

¶38

D) The petitioners shall not commit any offence or indulge in any prejudicial activity while on bail.

¶39

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

¶40

The Bail Application is allowed to the extent indicated

¶41

above.

¶42

K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE

¶43

scm

Prasad & Another v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prasad & Another 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

Sankar Ram T. Vs State of Kerala

Shaji Vs State of Kerala

P.a.Thomas Vs State of Kerala and Another

S.Krishna Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Benny Augustine & Another Vs State of Kerala

K.T.Joseph Vs State of Kerala