Allowed

Shan Devassia v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC24 Mar 2010Bail Appl./273/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court granted anticipatory bail to the accused alleged of abduction under Section 366 IPC. Bail was granted subject to a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties and conditions against witness tampering and further offences.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail allowed subject to bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties and conditions of appearance, no tampering, and no further offences.

Shan Devassia Vs the State of Kerala — Quashing and FIR | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH MARCH 2010 / 3RD CHAITHRA 1932

¶2

Bail Appl..No. 273 of 2010() ---------------------------CRIME NO.27/2010 OF TRIKKODITTANAM POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM.

¶3

PETITIONER/ACCUSED: -----------------------------------SHAN DEVASSIA, S/O.DEVASSIA, AGED 20 YEARS, KANIYAMNJAALIYIL HOUSE, PALLIKKATODU, PAIPADU, CHANGANASSERY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶4

BY ADV. SRI.G.SUKUMARA MENON SMT.DEEPTHI S.MENON

¶5

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: -----------------------------------------

¶6

THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TRIKKODITTANAM POLICE STATION THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶7

SRI. TEKCHAND, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶8

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶9

K.T. SANKARAN, J.

¶10

B.A. No.273 of 2010

¶11

Dated this the 24^th day of March, 2010

¶12

O R D E R

¶13

This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.27/2010 of Trikkodittanam Police Station, Kottayam.

¶14

The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶15

The de facto complainant is the father of Jomy Joseph, a girl aged 21 years. The allegation is that the petitioner abducted Jomy Joseph on 7/1/2010. The de facto complainant filed a complaint before the court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Changanassery, which was forwarded to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly, the crime was registered.

¶16

The father of the girl, K.T. Joseph, had filed W.P(Crl.) No.31 of 2010 for the issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus. That Writ Petition was dismissed by the judgment

¶17

B.A. No.273/2010

¶18

¶19

dated 8/2/2010. For the sake of convenience, the judgment dated 8/2/2010 is extracted below:

¶20

“Petitioner seeks a writ of habeas corpus

¶21

directing the respondents to produce the detenu Miss. Jomy Joseph, daughter of the petitioner, before this Court and to release her from the illegal custody of the 4^th respondent in the interest of justice. Petitioner is the father of the alleged detenu. The illegal detention was alleged at the hand of the fourth respondent.

¶22

2. We had interacted with the alleged detenu

¶23

and had passed an order dated 21/1/2010. Therein, we had noted that the alleged detenu would deny the case of illegal detention. But, we have directed accommodation of the alleged detenu in a hostel. The alleged detenu is present today also. Today also, the alleged detenu would submit that she is not under any illegal detention. She would say she is aged twenty one years. In so far as, there is no illegal detention, the Writ Petition fails and it is dismissed.”

¶24

In the facts and circumstances of the case as

¶25

B.A. No.273/2010

¶26

¶27

mentioned above, 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.10,000/-with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the officer concerned, subject to the following conditions:

¶28

A) The petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required;

¶29

B) The petitioner shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence;

¶30

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

¶31

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

¶32

The Bail Application is allowed to the extent indicated above.

¶33

K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE

¶34

scm

Shan Devassia v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shan Devassia v. the 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

Suraj Vs State of Kerala

Manikandan Vs State of Kerala

Manikandan Vs State of Kerala

Elias and Others Vs State of Kerala

Andul Razack Muhammed K. Vs State of Kerala

Faizal and Others Vs State of Kerala