Partly allowed

Manu v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC9 Aug 2011Bail Appl./5953/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala considered an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC. The court dismissed the application for the first petitioner, who allegedly caused injury with a sword. Anticipatory bail was allowed for the other accused, subject to conditions including appearance before the investigating officer and submission of bonds.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail was denied to the first petitioner. It was allowed to petitioners 2, 3, and 4 subject to conditions and furnishing a bond for Rs. 10,000.

Manu 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

TUESDAY, THE 9TH AUGUST 2011 / 18TH SRAVANA 1933

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 5953 of 2011

¶6

CRIME NO.743 OF 2011 OF ERAVIPURAM POLICE STATION, KOLLAM.

¶7

PETITIONERS: ACCUSED NOS.1, 3, 4 AND 2:

¶8

¶9

MANU, AGED 19 YEARS, S/O.RAJU, C.R.LAR, VADAKKEVILA CHERRY, VADAKKEVILA VILLAGE, KOLLAM.

¶10

SARATH, AGED 18 YEARS, S/O.VEERIAH, VILAVOOR VEEDU, VADAKKEVILA CHERRY, VADAKKEVILA VILLAGE, KOLLAM.

¶11

KANNAN, AGED 19 YEARS, S/O.UNNIKRISHNAN, UNNI NIVAS, VADAKKEVILA CHERRY, VADAKKEVILA VILLAGE, KOLLAM.

¶12

RANJITH, AGED 21 YEARS, VILAVOOR VEEDU, VADAKKEVILA CHERRY, VADAKKEVILA VILLAGE, KOLLAM.

BY ADV. SRI. K.SHAJ

SRI.SAJJU.S

SRI.C.D.ANIL

RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT:

¶17

¶18

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,

¶19

ERNAKULAM-31.

¶20

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.TEKCHAND

¶21

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

K.T.SANKARAN, J.

¶23

-----------------------------------------------------Bail Appl. NO. 5953 OF 2011

¶24

Dated this the 9^th day of August, 2011

¶25

O R D E R

¶26

This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners are accused Nos.1, 3, 4 and 2 respectively in Crime No.743 of 2011 of Eravipuram Police Station, Kollam District.

¶27

The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323 and 324 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

¶28

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

¶29

The allegation against accused No.1 is that he caused injuries to the de facto complainant with a sword. The allegation against the other accused is that they beat the de facto complainant with hands.

¶30

BAIL APPL. NO. 5953 OF 2011

¶31

:: 2 ::

¶32

Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the offence, the injury sustained and other circumstances, I am of the view that the first accused/first petitioner is not entitled to the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. As regards the other accused, I am of the view that anticipatory bail can be granted to them. There will be a direction that in the event of the arrest of petitioners 2, 3 and 4/accused Nos.3, 4 and 2, the officer in charge of the police station shall release them on bail on their executing bond for Rupees Ten thousand each with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the officer concerned, subject to the following conditions:

¶33

a) Petitioners 2, 3 and 4/accused Nos.3, 4 and 2 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;

¶34

b) Petitioners 2, 3 and 4/accused Nos.3, 4 and 2 shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required;

¶35

c) Petitioners 2, 3 and 4/accused Nos.3, 4 and 2 shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence;

¶36

BAIL APPL. NO. 5953 OF 2011

¶37

:: 3 ::

¶38

d) Petitioners 2, 3 and 4/accused Nos.3, 4 and 2 shall not commit any offence or indulge in any prejudicial activity while on bail;

¶39

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

¶40

The Bail Application is dismissed in so far as it relates to the first petitioner/first accused and it is allowed in the manner indicated above in so far as it relates to petitioners 2, 3 and 4/accused Nos.3, 4 and 2.

¶41

(K.T.SANKARAN) Judge

¶42

ahz/

Manu v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manu 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

Biju Vs State of Kerala and Another

Vishnu & Others Vs State of Kerala

Subhash Vs the State of Kerala

Anuraj and 3 Others Vs State of Kerala

Natarajan Vs State of Kerala and Another

Reghuvaran Vs State of Kerala