Allowed

Venukumar & Another v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC7 Apr 2010Bail Appl./878/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court granted anticipatory bail to two accused persons in a criminal case involving offences under Sections 452, 294(b), and 506(ii) IPC. Bail was granted subject to reporting conditions, non-interference with witnesses, and furnishing a bond of Rs. 15,000 each with two sureties.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted on bond of Rs. 15,000 each with two sureties, subject to conditions of reporting, interrogation, and non-interference.

Venukumar & Another Vs State of Kerala — Anticipatory Bail | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH APRIL 2010 / 17TH CHAITHRA 1932

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 878 of 2010()

¶6

---------------------------(CRIME NO.142 OF 2010 OF KOTTARAKKARA POLICE STATION)

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 & 2:

¶8

VENUKUMAR, S/O.KUTTAN PILLAI, AGED 43, MELEVILA PUTHENVEETTIL, MARANAD, VETTIKKAVALA, KOTTARAKKARA.

¶9

VIJAYAKUMAR, S/O.KUTTAN PILLAI, AGED 46, RAJITHA BHAVAN, MARANAD, VETTIKKAVALA, KOTTARAKKARA.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR

¶11

RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT:

¶12

¶13

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

¶14

(CRIME NO.142/2010 OF KOTTARAKKARA POLICE STATION)

¶15

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.M.KAMAPPU

¶16

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/04/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

K.T. SANKARAN, J.

¶18

B.A. No. 878 of 2010

¶19

Dated this the 7^th day of April, 2010

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners are accused Nos. 1 and 2 in Crime No. 142/2010 of Kottarakkara Police Station, Kollam District.

¶22

The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 452, 294(b) and 506(ii) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶23

When the Bail Application came up for hearing on 23.03.2010, the following order was passed:

¶24

“After having heard the learned counsel for the 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 26^th and 27^th March, 2010. The petitioners shall produce a copy of the order before the investigating officer.

¶25

B.A. No. 878 of 2010 2

¶26

Post on 05.04.2010.

¶27

It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioners will not be arrested until further orders in connection with Crime No.142/2010 of Kottarakkara Police Station, Kollam District.

¶28

Hand over copy to both sides.”

¶29

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners

¶30

and the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioners have complied with the direction contained in the order dated 23.03.2010.

¶31

Taking into account the facts and circumstances of 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 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:

¶32

B.A. No. 878 of 2010 3

¶33

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

¶34

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

¶35

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

¶36

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

¶37

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

¶38

The Bail Application is allowed to the extent indicated

¶39

above.

¶40

K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE

¶41

Venukumar & Another v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Venukumar & 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

Riyas P.H. Vs State of Kerala

M.K.Satheeshan Vs State of Kerala

Rajesh Vs State of Kerala

P.Girish Kumar Vs State

Prakasan.M.C. Vs State of Kerala

Vinil Kumar Vs State of Kerala