Partly allowed

Amal Darsan v. State

Kerala HC5 Aug 2011Bail Appl./5518/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala considered an application for anticipatory bail. The High Court dismissed the application for two petitioners but granted it to the remaining petitioners after they complied with a prior direction to appear before the investigating officer.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted to petitioners 4 and 5 on bond of Rs. 10,000 each subject to conditions; application dismissed for petitioners 1 to 3.

Amal Darsan Vs State — Anticipatory Bail | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN

¶3

FRIDAY, THE 5TH AUGUST 2011 / 14TH SRAVANA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 5518 of 2011() ----------------------------CRIME NO.598/2011 OF KILIMANOOR POLICE STATION

¶4

PETITIONERS : A1 TO 4 & 6

¶5

¶6

AMAL DARSAN, S/O.PRIYADARSAN, MELEVILA VEEDU, KUNNUMMEL, KILIMANOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶7

PRASANTH, S/O.SASI, POIKAYIL VEEDU, KUNNUMMEL, KILIMANOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶8

KRISHNANUNNI, S/O.VIJAYAKUMAR, KOTTARATHIL VEEDU, KUNNUMMEL, KILIMANOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶9

PRADEESH, S/O.PRADEEP, MANAKKUNNIL VEEDU, KUNNUMMEL, KILIMANOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶10

GIREESH, S/O.THULASEEDAS, D.S.BHAVAN, KUNNUMMEL, KILIMANOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI. K.SIJU SMT.BINDU GEORGE

¶11

RESPONDENT(S): ---------------

¶12

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

¶13

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.MANU

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

K.T.SANKARAN, J.

¶16

B.A.No.5518 of 2011

¶17

Dated this the 5th day of August, 2011

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 4 and 6 in Crime No.598 of 2011 of Kilimanoor Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram District.

¶20

The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 452, 294(b) and 324 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶21

3. When the Bail Application came up for admission on

¶22

13.7.2011, the following order was passed :

¶23

“3. The prosecution case is that on 21.6.2011 at 7.15 PM, the accused persons forcibly entered into the house of one Sabari, where the de facto complainant was available, and attacked the de facto complainant, Sabari and others and caused injuries on them. The prosecution case is that the accused persons committed the offence,

¶24

BA 5518/2011

¶25

¶26

since they believed that the de facto complainant was responsible for informing the police about the illegal sand mining activities in which the accused were involved.

¶27

It is seen that accused Nos.1 to 3 entered into the house and committed the overt acts. Accused Nos.4 and 6 were waiting in the varanda of the house and no overt act as such is attributed to accused Nos.4 and 6.

¶28

The offences alleged are serious in nature. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to accused Nos.1 to 3/petitioners 1 to 3. The Bail Application, in so far as it relates to accused Nos.1 to 3/petitioners 1 to 3, is liable to be dismissed.

¶29

As regards accused Nos.4 and 6/petitioners 4 and 5, I am of the view that before considering the question of granting anticipatory bail, petitioners 4 and 5 should be directed to appear before the investigating officer. Accordingly, there will be a direction to petitioners 4 and 5 to appear before the investigating officer on 20^th and 21^st July, 2011.

¶30

Post on 26^th July, 2011.

¶31

It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that petitioners 4 and 5 will not be arrested in connection with Crime No.598 of 2011 of Kilimanoor Police Station, till 29^th

BA 5518/2011

July, 2011.

Petitioners 4 and 5 shall produce a copy of this order before the investigating officer.”

¶36

The dates for appearance were extended to 1st and 2nd August, 2011, as per the order dated 26.7.2011.

¶37

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Public Prosecutor that the direction in the order dated 26.7.2011 has been complied with by the petitioners.

¶38

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 26.7.2011 has been complied with by the petitioners, I am of the view that anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioners.

¶39

There will be a direction that in the event of arrest of the petitioners, the officer in charge of the police station shall release

¶40

BA 5518/2011

¶41

¶42

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 :

¶43

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

¶44

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

¶45

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

¶46

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

¶47

The Bail Application is allowed to the extent indicated

above.

K.T.SANKARAN

JUDGE

csl

Amal Darsan v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amal Darsan v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.Murukesan Vs State of Kerala

C.K.Prajeesh Vs State of Kerala

Subash @ Manikuttan Vs State of Kerala

C.Abdul Salam Vs State of Kerala

Sudheesh Chandran @ Balu and Another Vs the S.I.of Police, Perunad and Another

Prathapan K Vs State of Kerala