Allowed

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

Kerala HC5 Aug 2011Bail Appl./5670/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Ernakulam allowed a bail application under Section 438 CrPC, directed petitioners to report on alternate Mondays, and fixed bail conditions regarding interference with witnesses and fresh offenses.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail allowed subject to reporting on alternate Mondays, appearance for interrogation, no influence on witnesses, and no further offenses.

Sudheesh Chandran @ Balu and Another Vs the S.I.of Police… — 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 FRIDAY, THE 5TH AUGUST 2011 / 14TH SRAVANA 1933

¶4

Bail Appl..No. 5670 of 2011() ----------------------------CRIME NO.156/2011 OF PERUNAD POLICE STATION

¶5

PETITIONER/ACCUSED 3 & 4 :

¶6

¶7

SUDHEESH CHANDRAN @ BALU, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O.CHANDRAN PILLAI, MADATHIL VEEDU, MADTHUMOOZHY, PERUNAD VILLAGE, RANNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHTITTA DISTRICT.

¶8

SYAM M.S. @ VISHWAN, AGED 23 YEARS, S/O.SOMANATHAN PILLAI, MADATHIL VEEDU, MADTHUMOOZHY, PERUNAD VILLAGE, RANNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.V.SETHUNATH

¶10

SRI.PRAKASH KESAVAN

¶11

RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT/STATE

¶12

¶13

THE S.I. OF POLICE, PERUNAD POLICE STATION, PIN-689711.

¶14

STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶15

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V. MANU

¶16

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

¶17

K.T.SANKARAN, J.

¶18

B.A.No.5670 of 2011

¶19

Dated this the 5th day of August, 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.3 and 4 in Crime No.156 of 2011 of Perunad Police Station, Pathanamthitta District.

¶22

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

¶23

3. When the Bail Application came up for hearing on 27.7.2011, the following order was passed :

¶24

“3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶25

The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in respect of an incident which took place on 6.6.2011, Crime No.164 of 2011 was registered for the offences

¶26

BA 5670/11

¶27

¶28

including an offence under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code and in that case the de facto complainant in the present case is accused No.2.

¶29

Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of the offence, 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 2^nd and 3^rd August, 2011.

¶30

Post on 5^th August, 2011.

¶31

It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioners will not be arrested in connection with Crime No.156 of 2011 of Perunad Police Station, Pathanamthitta District, till 10^th August, 2011.

¶32

The petitioners shall produce a copy of this order before the investigating officer.”

¶33

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Public Prosecutor that the direction in the order dated 27.7.2011 has been complied with by the petitioners.

¶34

BA 5670/11

¶35

¶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 27.7.2011 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 petitioners, 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, till the final report is filed or until further orders;

¶39

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

¶40

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

¶41

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

¶42

BA 5670/11

¶43

¶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

¶46

above.

¶47

K.T.SANKARAN JUDGE csl

BA 5670/11

K.T.SANKARAN, J.

B.A.No.5670 of 2011

Dated this the 20^th day of July, 2011

¶53

O R D E R

¶54

Learned Public Prosecutor will get instructions with respect to Crime No.164 of 2011 of Perunad Police Station. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that Crime No.164 of 2011 was registered for the offences including an offence under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code and in that case, the de facto complainant in the present case is accused No.2.

¶55

It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioners will not be arrested in connection with Crime No.156 of 2011 of Perunad Police Station till 29^th July, 2011.

Post on 27.7.2011.

K.T.SANKARAN

BA 5670/11 6

JUDGE csl

Hand over copy to both sides.

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

S.Murukesan Vs State of Kerala

C.K.Prajeesh Vs State of Kerala

Subash @ Manikuttan Vs State of Kerala

Amal Darsan Vs State

C.Abdul Salam Vs State of Kerala

Prathapan K Vs State of Kerala