Allowed

Nazarene Fernando @ Nachi v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC8 Mar 2011Bail Appl./1540/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order allows bail to an accused facing charges of murder. The High Court granted bail effective March 30, 2011, given the duration of custody and investigation stage, subject to standard conditions including reporting and non-interference with witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail w.e.f. 30.03.2011 on executing a bond of Rs. 15,000 with two sureties, subject to conditions of reporting and non-interference.

Nazarene Fernando @ Nachi Vs State of Kerala — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 8TH MARCH 2011 / 17TH PHALGUNA 1932

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 1540 of 2011()

¶6

CRIME NO. 92/2005 OF KANJIRAMKULAM POLICE STATION (CBCID CRIME 3/CR/TVM/06)

¶7

APPLICANT / 4TH ACCUSED:

¶8

------------------------------------------

¶9

NAZARENE FERNANDO @ NACHI, S/O.KULANTHAI, ERAYAMMANTHURA PLURAYIDAM, PULLUVILA, KARINKULAM PANCHAYAT, KAINKULAM VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHEER

¶11

RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT:

¶12

----------------------------------------------

¶13

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM (DETECTIVE INSPECTOR, CBCID, HHW-I, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶14

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. M.S. BREEZE

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

¶17

V. RAMKUMAR, J.

¶18

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

¶19

B. A. No.1540 of 2011

¶20

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

¶21

Dated this the 8^th day of March, 2011.

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

In this Petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C., the petitioner, who is accused No.4 in Crime No.92 of 2005 of Kanjiramkulam Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 34 I.P.C., seeks his enlargement on bail. The petitioner was arrested on 10.02.2011.

¶24

I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶25

Having regard to the nature of the offences, the duration of judicial custody undergone by the petitioner, the present stage of investigation of the case and the other circumstances of the case etc., I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail w.e.f 30.03.2011 on his executing a bond for `15,000/(Rupees fifteen thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the Magistrate concerned and subject to the following conditions:

¶26

B.A. No. 1540/2011

¶27

: 2:

¶28

The petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m. on all Wednesdays till the filing of the final report.

¶29

The petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation as and when required by the police at any time till the filing of the final report.

¶30

The petitioner shall not influence or intimidate the prosecution witnesses nor shall he attempt to tamper with the evidence for the prosecution.

¶31

The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail.

¶32

If the petitioner commits breach of any of the above conditions, the bail granted to him shall be liable to be cancelled.

¶33

This application is allowed as above.

¶34

sd/- V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE.

¶35

¶36

//True Copy//

¶37

P.A to Judge.

Nazarene Fernando @ Nachi v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nazarene Fernando @ Nachi 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

Shaiju.K and Another Vs State of Kerala

Bindu Thomas Vs v.Subramani

K.K.Reejabai Vs a.P.M.Mohammed Haneesh

I.Pathrose Vs Binil K.John & Another

Sulochana M. & Others Vs the Taluk Land Board & Another

Jayanth R.Kanani Vs M/S.Sulfex India Pvt. Ltd.