Allowed

Raju v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC4 Apr 2011Bail Appl./1666/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Case involves bail application by Raju accused under Section 8(ii) of Abkari Act. Court allowed bail recognizing entitlement under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. due to delay in final report. Released on personal bond with two sureties subject to specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to be released on bail on executing bond for 50,000 with two solvent sureties subject to conditions.

Raju Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR

¶4

MONDAY, THE 4TH APRIL 2011 / 14TH CHAITHRA 1933

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 1666 of 2011() ------------------------CRIME NO.102/2009 OF KARTHIKAPPALLY EXCISE RANGE

¶6

PETITIONER/ACCUSED

¶7

¶8

RAJU,S/O.PANICKER, MUNDANPARAMBIL,PALLANA MURI, THRIKKUNNAPUZHA.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.R.SUNIL KUMAR SMT.A.SALINI LAL

¶10

RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT

¶11

¶12

STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, REP.BY EXCISE INSPECTOR, KARTHIKAPPALLY RANGE.

¶13

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

V. RAMKUMAR, J.

¶16

-------------------------------------------------------Bail Application No.1666 of 2011

¶17

--------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 4^th day of April, 2011.

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Petitioner, who is the sole accused in Crime No.102 of 2009 of Karthikappally Excise Range, for an offence punishable under Section 8(ii) of the Abkari Act, seeks his enlargement on bail.

¶20

The learned Public Prosecutor on instructions submitted that no final report has been filed even after 60 days of judicial custody of the petitioner. If so, by virtue of the proviso to Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail as of right.

¶21

Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail on his executing a bond for `50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the Magistrate concerned and subject to the following conditions:-

¶22

1. 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.

¶23

2. The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person who is acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him or her from disclosing any information to the court or to the police.

¶24

Bail Appln.No.1666/ 2011

¶25

-:2:-

¶26

3. The petitioner shall not establish any contact with any of the witnesses or accused in the case.

¶27

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

¶28

5. The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail.

¶29

6. The petitioner shall notify his place of residence before executing the bail bond.

¶30

If the petitioner commits breach of any of the above conditions,

¶31

the bail granted to him shall be liable to be cancelled.

¶32

This application is allowed as above.

¶33

Dated this the 4^th day of April, 2011.

¶34

V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE.

¶35

skj

Raju v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raju 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

Junaid Ali @ Junais Vs State of Kerala

Najeeb Vs State of Kerala

Riyas Vs Excise Circle Inspector

Indramohan Sahadevan Vs State of Kerala

Ansari and 3 Others Vs State of Kerala and Another

Sivanandan @ Sivan Vs State of Kerala