Allowed

Sujeesh R & Another v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC22 Jul 2011Bail Appl./5222/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala granted anticipatory bail to two accused persons charged underSections 341, 324, 326 IPC read with 34 IPC. The court imposed conditions, including a bond of Rs. 10,000 and regular reporting. Relied on prior compliance with the initial direction to aid the decision. The bail application was allowed.

What did the court decide?

Bail application allowed; petitioners to execute a bond of Rs. 10,000 each with two solvent sureties subject to reporting conditions.

Sujeesh R & Another Vs State of Kerala — Anticipatory Bail | 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 22ND JULY 2011 / 31ST ASHADHA 1933

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 5222 of 2011()

¶6

----------------------------CRIME NO.255/2011 OF KASBA POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 & 2

¶8

¶9

SUJEESH.R., AGED 27 YEARS, S/O.RAJAN, KURUPATH VEEDU, MUNDAKKODE, CHANDRA NAGAR (PO), PALAKKAD.

¶10

HARIDASAN.S., AGED 27 YEARS, S/O.SOMAN, CHEMPADAMKALAM, PIRIVUSALA, CHANDRA NAGAR (PO), PALAKKAD.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.GOPAKUMAR R.THALIYAL SRI.SUNIL JOSEPH

¶12

RESPONDENT(S): STATE

¶13

¶14

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI- 682 031.

¶15

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.MANU

¶16

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

K.T.SANKARAN, J.

¶18

B.A.No.5222 of 2011

¶19

Dated this the 22nd day of July, 2011

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.255 of 2011 of Kasba Police Station, Palakkad District.

¶22

The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 341, 324 and 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶23

When the Bail Application came up for admission on

¶24

12.7.2011, the following order was passed :

¶25

“3. The prosecution case is that on 17.6.2011, the accused persons attacked the de facto complainant in front of a temple and the de facto complainant sustained fracture of his left hand.

¶26

BA 5222/2011

¶27

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the de facto complainant and others attacked the petitioners and Crime No.256 of 2011 was registered for the offences under Sections 323 and 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. In Crime No.256 of 2011, the first petitioner herein is the de facto complainant. He sustained incised wounds on his chest and forehead on account of the attack made by the accused therein with knife.

¶29

Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of the offence and also taking into account the incised injuries sustained by the first petitioner, 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 19^th and 20^th July, 2011.

¶30

Post on 22^nd July, 2011. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioners will not be arrested in connection with Crime No.255 of 2011 of Kasba Police Station, Palakkad District, till 25^th July, 2011.

¶31

The petitioners shall produce a copy of this order

¶32

BA 5222/2011

¶33

¶34

before the investigating officer.”

¶35

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Public Prosecutor that the direction in the order dated 12.7.2011 has been complied with by the petitioners.

¶36

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 12.7.2011 has been complied with by the petitioners, I am of the view that anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioners.

¶37

There will be a direction that in the event of arrest of the petitioner, the officer in charge of the police station shall release them on bail on their executing bond for ` 10,000/- each with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the officer concerned, subject to the following conditions :

¶38

A) The petitioners shall report before the investigating officer between 9 A.M. and 11 A.M. on alternate Mondays for a period of two months ;

¶39

BA 5222/2011

¶40

¶41

B) The petitioners shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required .

¶42

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

¶43

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

¶44

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

¶45

The Bail Application is allowed to the extent indicated

above.

K.T.SANKARAN

JUDGE

csl

Sujeesh R & Another v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sujeesh R & Another 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

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

Berlin @ Selvin Vs State of Kerala

Vinod and Another Vs State of Kerala

Dr.a.C.Velayudhan Vs State of Kerala

Arun & Others Vs State of Kerala

Soji Panicker Vs State of Kreala