Allowed

Jermin John v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC11 Aug 2011Bail Appl./5942/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam examined a bail application for anticipatory relief. After observing that the petitioner complied with a previous direction to appear before the investigating officer, the court granted anticipatory bail subject to specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted subject to execution of a bond of `10,000 with two sureties and compliance with conditional reporting.

Jermin John 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

THURSDAY, THE 11TH AUGUST 2011 / 20TH SRAVANA 1933

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 5942 of 2011() ----------------------------CRIME NO.991/2011 OF ANGAMALY POLICE STATION

¶6

PETITIONER/ACCUSED --------------------JERMIN JOHN, S/O.JOHN, AGED 24 YEARS, PARAMBIL HOUSE, KOKKUNNU P.O., MOOKKANNOOR.

¶7

BY ADV. SRI.LIFFY P. FRANCIS

¶8

RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT

¶9

¶10

ANGAMALY POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶11

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.MANU

¶12

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

K.T.SANKARAN, J.

¶14

--------------------------------------------Bail Appln.No.5942 of 2011

¶15

Dated this the 11^th day of August, 2011

¶16

ORDER

¶17

This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is accused No.3 in Crime No.991 of 2011 of Angamaly Police Station.

¶18

The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 452, 323, 341, 354 and 308 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶19

When the Bail Application came up for admission on 27/07/2011, the following order was passed:

¶20

“3. It is submitted that accused No.1 was arrested and he was granted regular bail. As per the order dated 13^th July, 2011 anticipatory bail was granted to accused No.2. It is submitted that the injuries sustained by the de facto complainant are not attributable to any overt act done by the petitioner.

¶21

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

¶22

Bail Appln.No.5942/2011

¶23

: 2 :

¶24

petitioner should be directed to appear before the investigating officer. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the petitioner to appear before the investigating officer on 08/08/2011.

¶25

Post on 11/08/2011.

¶26

It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioner will not be arrested in connection with Crime No.991 of 2011 of Angamaly Police Station, till 15/08/2011.”

¶27

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor that the direction in the order dated 27/07/2011 has been complied with by the petitioner.

¶28

Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the offences and also taking note of the fact that the direction in the order dated 27/07/2011 has been complied with by the petitioner, I am of the view that anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner. There will be a direction that in the event of the arrest of the petitioner, the officer in charge of the police station shall release him on bail on his executing bond for `10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the officer concerned, subject to the following conditions:

¶29

Bail Appln.No.5942/2011

¶30

: 3 :

¶31

a) The petitioner shall report before the investigating officer between 9 A.M. and 11 A.M. on all alternate Mondays, till the final report is filed or until further orders;

¶32

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

¶33

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

¶34

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

¶35

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

¶36

The Bail Application is allowed to the extent indicated

¶37

above.

¶38

K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE

¶39

skj

Jermin John v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jermin John 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

Jayan Krishnan Vs State of Kerala

Anu K.P. Vs State of Kerala

Febin and Others Vs State of Kerala

Umesh Mohan and Another Vs State of Kerala

Santhosh Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Thulasy T.S. Vs State of Kerala