Allowed

Berlin @ Selvin v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC21 Jul 2011Bail Appl./5201/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court granted anticipatory bail to accused persons under Section 438 CrPC after noting compliance with a prior direction to appear before the investigating officer, subject to specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

Bail application allowed; petitioners directed to execute bond of Rs. 10,000 each with two solvent sureties for similar amount, subject to specific conditions.

Berlin @ Selvin 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

THURSDAY, THE 21ST JULY 2011 / 30TH ASHADHA 1933

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 5201 of 2011(E)

¶6

-----------------------------------------[CRIME NO.320/2011 OF PEERMADE POLICE STATION, IDUKKI DISTRICT] ...............

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1, 2 & 4:

¶8

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

¶9

1. BERLIN @ SELVIN , S/O.LATE SELVARAJ, ELAPPARA MARKET, ELAPPARA.

¶10

2. SANTHOSH, S/O.LATE NAGAMONY KOZHIKKANOM ESTATE IST DIVISION KOZHIKKUNNU, ELAPPARA.

¶11

3. ICE @ PRAKASHAN, S/O.JGNA MUTHU, KOZHIKKANOM ESTATE 2ND DIVISION, ELAPPARA.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.BIJU .C. ABRAHAM.

¶13

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶14

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

¶15

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PEERMADE POLICE STATION, THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM.

¶16

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. TEKCHAND.

¶17

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/07/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

prv.

¶19

K.T.SANKARAN, J .

¶20

B.A.No. 5201 OF 2011

¶21

Dated this the 21^st day of July, 2011

¶22

ORDER

¶23

This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners are accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 in Crime No.320 of 2011 of Peermade Police Station.

¶24

The offences alleged against the accused are under Sections 294(b), 341, 452 and 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶25

The prosecution case is that on 12.6.2011 at 11.30 PM, the accused persons went to the 'thattukada' run by the defacto complainant and asked to provide tumblers for consuming liquor. The defacto complainant refused to give tumblers. Infuriated by the conduct of the defacto complainant, the accused persons assaulted the defacto complainant and caused injuries on him.

¶26

B.A.No. 5201 OF 2011

¶27

¶28

The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that even if all the allegations are taken as true, the offence under Section 452 is not made out, as there can never be a house trespass in the present case. It is also submitted that barring Section 452, all the other offences are bailable offences.

¶29

When the Bail Application came up for admission on

¶30

5^th July, 2011, the following order was passed:

¶31

“5. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of the offences, I am of the view that before considering the question of granting anticipatory bail, the petitioners should be directed to appear before the investigating officer. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the petitioners to appear before the investigating officer on 13^th July, 2011.”

¶32

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Public Prosecutor that the direction in the order dated 5^th July, 2011 has been complied with by the petitioners.

¶33

B.A.No. 5201 OF 2011

¶34

¶35

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^th July, 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 shall release them on bail on their executing bond for `10,000/-(Rupees Ten thousand only) each with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the officer concerned, subject to the following conditions:

¶36

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;

¶37

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

¶38

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

¶39

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

¶40

B.A.No. 5201 OF 2011 4

¶41

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

¶42

The Bail Application is allowed to the extent indicated

¶43

above.

¶44

K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE .

¶45

cms

Berlin @ Selvin v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Berlin @ Selvin 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

Dittomon Alias Pappachan and Another Vs the State and Another

George Kutty Vs State of Kerala

Sekh Saraffaizudin @ Sarpharaj Vs State of Kerala

Binu P.M. and Another Vs the State of Kerala

Vinod and Another Vs State of Kerala

Haseem Vs State of Kerala