Allowed

Francis v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC15 Oct 2009Bail Appl./5468/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala granted anticipatory bail to the accused Francis, who was charged with offences under Sections 379 and 511 IPC. The court directed the execution of a bond with sureties and imposed standard conditions including regular reporting to the investigating officer and refraining from influencing witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted subject to execution of bond for Rs. 15,000 with two sureties and imposition of conditions including reporting to police and refraining from influencing witnesses.

Francis Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 15TH OCTOBER 2009 / 23RD ASWINA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 5468 of 2009() ----------------------------CRIME NO.405/2009 OF NEYYATTINKARA POLICE STATION. PETITIONER/ACCUSED: -----------------------------------FRANCIS,S/O.DANAM, AGED 57,THAVARAVILA,IRUMPIL, ARUVIPPURAM P.O.

¶2

BY ADV. SRI.R.T.PRADEEP

¶3

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------THE STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM.

¶4

SRI. M.S. BREEZ, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶5

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

¶6

K.T. SANKARAN, J.

¶7

B.A. No. 5468 of 2009

¶8

Dated this the 15^th day of October, 2009

¶9

O R D E R

¶10

This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is accused No. 1 in Crime No.405/2009 of Neyyattinkara Police Station.

¶11

The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 511 of 379 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶12

When the Bail Application came up for hearing on 30/9/2009, the following order was passed:

¶13

“After having heard the learned counsel for the

¶14

petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor, I am of

¶15

the view that before disposing of the Bail Application, an opportunity should be given to the petitioner to appear before the investigating officer. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the petitioner to appear before the investigating officer at 9 A.M. on 8^th and 9^th October, 2009.

¶16

Post on 15/10/2009.

¶17

B.A. No. 5468 / 2009

¶18

¶19

It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor

¶20

that the petitioner will not be arrested until further

¶21

orders in connection with Crime No.405/2009 of Neyyattinkara Police Station.”

¶22

The learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner has complied with the directions contained in the order dated 30/9/2009.

¶23

Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the

¶24

case, the nature of the offence and other circumstances, I am of the view that anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner. There will be a direction that in the event of the arrest of the petitioner, the officer in charge of the police station shall release him on bail on his executing bond for Rs.15,000/- with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the officer concerned, subject to the following conditions:

¶25

A) The 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;

¶26

B) The petitioner shall appear before the

¶27

B.A. No. 5468 / 2009

¶28

¶29

investigating officer for interrogation as and when required;

¶30

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

¶31

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

¶32

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

¶33

The Bail Application is allowed to the extent indicated

¶34

above.

¶35

K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE

¶36

scm

Francis v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Francis 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

Shaji Vs State of Kerala

P.a.Thomas Vs State of Kerala and Another