Allowed

Nidhin v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC18 Oct 2011Bail Appl./6283/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala granted anticipatory bail to an accused person in a criminal trial for offenses under the Indian Penal Code, subject to conditions including cooperation with investigation and specific behavioral restrictions. The court acknowledged prior compliance by the petitioner. This judgment is an order allowing bail with specified terms.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted anticipatory bail on executing a bond for Rs. 10,000 with two solvent sureties for a like amount, subject to conditions regarding cooperation with investigation and conduct.

Nidhin 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

TUESDAY, THE 18TH OCTOBER 2011 / 26TH ASWINA 1933

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 6283 of 2011

¶6

CRIME NO.897 OF 2011 OF KODUNGALLUR POLICE STATION, THRISSUR.

¶7

PETITIONER: ACCUSED NO.2:

¶8

¶9

NIDHIN, S/O.NARAYANAN, MANGATTU HOUSE, CHITTATTUKARA, VADAKKEKARA.P.O.

BY ADV. SRI.S.RAJEEV

RESPONDENT: STATE:

STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERANAKULAM (CRIME NO.897/2011 OF KODUNGALLUR POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT.)

¶14

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.K.RAJEEV

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

K.T.SANKARAN, J.

¶17

-----------------------------------------------------Bail Appl. NO. 6283 of 2011

¶18

Dated this the 18^th day of October, 2011

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is accused No.2 in Crime No.897 of 2011 of Kodungallur Police Station, Thrissur District.

¶21

The offences alleged against the accused are under Sections 323, 427, 341, 447 and 452 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶22

When the Bail Application came up for admission on 4^th October, 2011, the following order was passed:

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

Bail Appl. NO.6283 of 2011

¶26

:: 2 ::

¶27

anticipatory bail, the 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 12^th and 13^th October, 2011.

¶28

Post on 18^th October, 2011.

¶29

It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioner will not be arrested in connection with Crime No.897 of 2011 of Kodungallur Police Station, till 21^st October, 2011.

¶30

The petitioner shall co-operate with the investigating officer in the matter of investigation and for recovery of incriminating materials, if any.

¶31

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

¶32

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the direction in the order dated 4^th October, 2011 has been complied with by the petitioner.

¶33

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 4^th October, 2011 has been complied

¶34

Bail Appl. NO.6283 of 2011

¶35

:: 3 ::

¶36

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:

¶37

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

¶38

b) The petitioner shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence;

¶39

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

¶40

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

¶41

The Bail Application is allowed to the extent indicated above.

¶42

(K.T.SANKARAN) Judge

¶43

ahz/

Nidhin v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nidhin 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

Sasi @ Raja Gopal Vs State of Kerala

Thankappan Vs State of Kerala

Thankachan Vs State of Kerala

Dr.Zacharia Joseph Vs State Rep.by the Public Prosecutor

Santhosh Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Nizamuddin Vs the State of Kerala