Allowed

Bijoy v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC19 Mar 2010Bail Appl./917/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala, in a bail bail application, granted anticipatory bail to three accused persons involved in various offences under the Indian Penal Code. The court emphasized compliance with specific conditions and the necessity of reporting to the investigating officer.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted subject to conditions including reporting to investigating officer on alternate Mondays and appearing for interrogation as required.

Bijoy Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 19TH MARCH 2010 / 28TH PHALGUNA 1931

¶3

Bail Appl..No. 917 of 2010(B)

¶4

------------------------------------CRIME NO.2215/2009 OF NEDUMBASSERY POLICE STATION.

¶5

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 3:

¶6

¶7

BIJOY, S/O. KUMARAN, AGED 35 YEARS, PADAPPARAMBATHU HOUSE, CHOWARA KARA, CHOWARA VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶8

SHEREEF, S/O.IBRAHIM, AGED 35 YEARS, VAZHAYIL HOUSE, CHOWARA KARA, CHOWARA VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶9

JOY, S/O OUSEPH, AGED 40 YEARS, CHANDANATHIL HOUSE, CHOWARA KARA, CHOWARA VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.SAKIR.K.H.

¶11

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶12

¶13

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

¶14

SRI. P.A. SALIM, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

K.T. SANKARAN, J.

¶17

B.A. No.917 of 2010

¶18

Dated this the 19^th day of March, 2010

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 3 in Crime No.2215/2009 of Nedumbassery Police Station.

¶21

The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 323, 324, 427 and 308 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶22

When the Bail Application came up for hearing on 3/03/2010, the following order was passed;

¶23

“ 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 8.3.2010 and 9.3.2010. The petitioners

¶24

B.A. No.917/ 2010

¶25

¶26

shall produce copy of the order before the investigating officer.

¶27

Post on 15/3/2010.

¶28

It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor

¶29

that the petitioners will not be arrested until further orders in connection with Crime No.2215 of 2009 of Nedumbassery Police Station.”

¶30

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioners have complied with the direction contained in the order dated 3/03/2010.

¶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.917/ 2010

¶33

¶34

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

¶35

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

¶36

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

¶37

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

¶38

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

¶39

The Bail Application is allowed to the extent indicated

¶40

above.

¶41

K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE

¶42

scm

Bijoy v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bijoy 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

Koovapara George Vs S.I. of Police

C.K.Mohammed Vs the Station House Officer, Nadakkavu

Subair Vs State of Kerala

Lakshmi Vs State of Kerala

Shafeeq Vs State of Kerala

P.C.Thomas Vs State of Kerala