Allowed

Poopesh Kumar v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC29 Jun 2011Bail Appl./3002/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court granted anticipatory bail to three accused persons under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in a case involving offences under Sections 323, 498 A and 506 IPC. Bail was subject to conditions including weekly reporting, availability for interrogation, and non-interference with witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners' bail application allowed; direction issued for release on bond of Rs. 25,000 each with two solvent sureties.

Poopesh Kumar Vs State of Kerala — Dowry and Cruelty | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH JUNE 2011 / 8TH ASHADHA 1933

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 3002 of 2010() -----------------------CRIME NO. 695 OF 2010 OF KOLLAM EAST POLICE STATION

¶6

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 3

¶7

¶8

ROOPESH KUMAR,S/O.C.P.RAGHAVAN PILLAI, ALUKKADU,ARINALLUR SOUTH.P.O,KOLLAM.

¶9

THANUAGI,W/O.C.P.RAGHAVAN PILLAI, ALUKKADU,ARINALLUR SOUTH.P.O,KOLLAM.

¶10

RATHI DEVI,W/O.KARMACHANDRAN,THANNIKKAL, ARINALLUR SOUTH.P.O,KOLLAM.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.P.B.SAHASRANAMAN

¶12

RESPONDENT(S): STATE

¶13

¶14

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

¶15

THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,KOLLAM EAST POLICE STATION,KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶16

P UBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S. BREEZE

¶17

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

V. RAMKUMAR, J.

¶19

................................... B.A. No. 3002 OF 2010

¶20

..................................

¶21

Dated: 29-06-2011

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

In this Petition filed under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. the petitioners who are accused Nos. 1 to 3 in Crime No. 695 of 2010 of Kollam East Police Station, Kollam District, for offences punishable under Sections 323, 498 A and 506 (ii) read with Sec. 34 I.P.C., seek anticipatory bail.

¶24

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

¶25

After evaluating the factors and parameters which are to be taken into consideration in the light of paragraph 122 of the verdict dated 2-12-2010 of the Apex Court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra and Others (2010 (4) KLT 930) ,, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, a direction is issued to the officer-in-charge of the police station concerned to release the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in connection with the above case on each of the petitioners executing a bond for Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction to the said officer and subject to the following conditions: -

¶26

Bail A.No. 3002 of 2011

¶27

-:2:-

¶28

Petitioners shall report before the Investigating Officer between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m. on all Wednesdays.

¶29

Petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation including custodial interrogation as and when required by the Investigating Officer.

¶30

Petitioners shall not influence or intimidate the prosecution witnesses nor shall they attempt to tamper with the evidence for the prosecution.

¶31

Petitioners shall not commit any offence while on bail.

¶32

The bail granted pursuant to this order shall be in force till the end of the trial of the case unless and until it is cancelled by this Court in accordance with paragraph 103 of the verdict in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre's

¶33

case (supra).

¶34

If the petitioners commit breach of any of the above conditions, the bail granted to them shall be liable to be cancelled.

¶35

This application is allowed as above.

¶36

Dated this the 29th day of June, 2011.

¶37

ani/

¶38

/true copy/