Allowed

Sameer v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC15 Jul 2011Bail Appl./5187/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC for three accused accused of offences under the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act. The court granted bail conditioned on surrender for regular bail within two months and undertaking specific conditions regarding reporting, interrogation, and conduct.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted for two months subject to executing a bond with two sureties of Rs. 10,000 each and complying with conditions of reporting, interrogation, and surrender for regular bail befo

Sameer Vs State of Kerala — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 15TH JULY 2011 / 24TH ASHADHA 1933

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 5187 of 2011

¶6

CRIME NO.315 OF 2011 OF TANUR POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM.

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED

¶8

¶9

SAMEER, S/O.MUHAMMED KUTTY, PUTHAN VILAYIL HOUSE, P.O.NIRAMARUTHUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶10

MANEESH, S/O.MANI, CHATHANKUNNANPURAKKAL HOUSE, P.O.NIRAMARUTHUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶11

UNNIKRISHNAN, S/O.GOPALAKRISHNAN, PALLIPARAMBATH HOUSE, P.O.NIRAMARUTHUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.U.K.DEVIDAS

¶13

RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT

¶14

¶15

STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TANUR POLICE STATION, THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM,

¶16

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.TEKCHAND

¶17

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

K.T.SANKARAN, J.

¶19

B.A. NO. 5187 OF 2011

¶20

Dated this the 15^th day of July, 2011

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

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.315 of 2011 of Tanur Police Station.

¶23

The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 341, 332, 323 and 427 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(2)(a) of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act.

¶24

The prosecution case is that on 19.6.2011 at about 8 P.M., while the de facto complainant and other officers of the Kerala State Electricity Board were returning after rectifying the defects in the electricity supply, they were attacked by the accused persons and they caused damage to the jeep belonging to the Kerala State Electricity Board. The accused persons also prevented the de facto complainant and others from discharging their official duties. The

¶25

B.A. NO.5187 OF 2011

¶26

:: 2 ::

¶27

petitioners state that they are innocent and that if they are arrested, they would be humiliated and harassed.

¶28

When the Bail Application came up for admission on 4^th July, 2011, the following directions were issued:

¶29

“5. After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the Public Prosecutor, I think before considering the question of granting anticipatory bail, it would be proper to direct the petitioners to appear before the Investigating Officer between 9 A.M. and 11 A.M. on 11^th July, 2011.”

¶30

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Public Prosecutor that the direction in the order dated 4^th July, 2011 has been complied with by the petitioners.

¶31

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 4.7.2011 has been complied with by the petitioners, 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

¶32

B.A. NO.5187 OF 2011

¶33

:: 3 ::

¶34

shall release them on bail for a period of two months on their executing bond for Rupees Ten thousand each with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the officer concerned, subject to the following conditions:

¶35

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;

¶36

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

¶37

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

¶38

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

¶39

e) Before the expiry of the period mentioned above, the petitioners shall surrender before the Magistrate concerned and seek regular bail.

¶40

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

¶41

The Bail Application is allowed to the extent indicated above.

¶42

(K.T.SANKARAN) Judge

¶43

ahz/

Sameer v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sameer 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

Sunil Kumar C. Vs State of Kerala

Shajeev and Another Vs State of Kerala

Janardhanan Vs the Station House Officer, Police Statio

Mahesh and Another Vs State of Kerala

C.Ramakrishnan Vs State of Kerala

Johny Vs State of Kerala