Allowed

Krishna Prasad v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC18 Jul 2011Bail Appl./5167/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court considered an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC. The petitioner, accused of attempting to abduct a child and wielding a weapon, was granted bail after complying with prior procedural directions for police interrogation. The court imposed standard conditions for release.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted subject to execution of a bond for Rs. 10,000 with two sureties and conditions for police interrogation and non-tampering with evidence.

Krishna Prasad 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 K.T.SANKARAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 18TH JULY 2011 / 27TH ASHADHA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 5167 of 2011() ----------------------------CRIME NO.1097/2011 OF ERNAKULAM TOWN NORTH POLICE STATION ....................

¶5

PETITIONER/ACCUSED : ---------------------------

¶6

KRISHNA PRASAD, AGED 37, S/O. KARTHIKEYAN, KOCHAN HOUSE, BLANGAD, CHAVAKAD, 'NOW RESIDING AT PUTTUSWAMI BUILDING, ROOM NO.118, BODAKALHANDRA,KANAKAPURA ROAD, BANGALORE-62.

¶7

BY ADV. SRI.K.V.SABU

¶8

RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶9

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.TEKCHAND

¶10

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶11

K.T.SANKARAN, J.

¶12

B.A.No.5167 of 2011

¶13

Dated this the 18th day of July, 2011

¶14

O R D E R

¶15

This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Petitioner is the first accused in Crime No.1097 of 2011 of Ernakulam Town North

¶16

Police Station.

¶17

The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 324 and 308 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶18

3. The de facto complainant is the father-in-law of the

¶19

first accused. The allegation is that the petitioner went to the house of the de facto complainant and tried to take away his child, aged 5 years. When the de facto complainant interfered,

¶20

the first accused wielded an 'urumi'. It is also alleged that three other identifiable persons were there along with the first accused.

¶21

BA 5167/2011

¶22

¶23

4. When the Bail Application came up for admission on 5.7.2011, the following order was passed :

¶24

“4. After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor, I am of the view that before considering the prayer for anticipatory bail, the petitioner should be given an opportunity to appear before the investigating officer. The petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer on 12^th and 13^th of July, 2011 between 9 A.M. and 11 A.M. Post on 18^th July, 2011.

¶25

The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that till then, the petitioner will not be arrested in connection with the crime.”

¶26

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor that the direction in the order dated 5.7.2011 has been complied with by the petitioner.

¶27

Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the offence and also taking note of the fact that the direction in the order dated 5.7.2011 has been complied

¶28

BA 5167/2011

¶29

¶30

with by the petitioner, I am of the view that anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner.

¶31

There will be a direction that in the event of arrest of the petitioner, the officer in charge of the police station shall release him on bail on his executing bond for ` 10,000/- with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the officer

¶32

concerned, subject to the following conditions :

¶33

A) The petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required .

¶34

B) The petitioner shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence .

¶35

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

¶36

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

¶37

The Bail Application is allowed to the extent indicated

¶38

above.

¶39

K.T.SANKARAN

¶40

csl

Krishna Prasad v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishna Prasad 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

Mahesh and Another Vs State of Kerala

Sameer Vs State of Kerala

C.Ramakrishnan Vs State of Kerala

Roopan Vs State of Kerala

Sunil Vs State of Kerala

Rameshkumar Vs State of Kerala