Allowed

Thankappan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC17 Oct 2011Bail Appl./6881/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, an accused under IPC Sections 324 and 326. The court noted the petitioner's compliance with a prior direction to appear before the investigating officer. Bail was allowed subject to standard conditions including appearance for interrogation and non-interference with witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted subject to the petitioner appearing for interrogation, not influencing witnesses, and not committing further offences.

Thankappan 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

MONDAY, THE 17TH OCTOBER 2011 / 25TH ASWINA 1933

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 6881 of 2011() ----------------------------CRIME NO.371/2011 OF KODANADU POLICE STATION

¶6

PETITIONER:ACCUSED

¶7

¶8

THANKAPPAN,AGED 55 YEARS,S/O.LATE EASWARA PILLAI, PALLATH VEEDU,CHERANALLOOR P.O, THOTTUVA,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.K.S.ARUN KUMAR

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

¶12

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM.

¶13

DEVAKI AMMA,AGED 80 YEARS, W/O.LATE PARAMESWARAN NAIR, PALLATH VEEDU,CHERNALLOOR P.O, THOTTUVA,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶14

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.K.RAJEEV

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

K.T.SANKARAN, J.

¶17

Bail Appln.No.6881 of 2011

¶18

Dated this the 17^th day of October, 2011

¶19

ORDER

¶20

This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.371 of 2011 of Kodanadu Police Station.

¶21

The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 324 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶22

When the Bail Application came up for admission on 04/10/2011, the following order was passed:

¶23

“3. The victim is the mother in law of the petitioner, who is impleaded as the second respondent in the Bail Application. Advocate Sri.P.P.Biju appears for the second respondent. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the second respondent that the disputes between the victim and the petitioner were settled.

¶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 anticipatory bail, the petitioner should be directed to appear before

¶25

Bail Appln.No.6881/2011

¶26

: 2 :

¶27

the investigating officer. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the petitioner to appear before the investigating officer on 12^th October, 2011.

¶28

Post on 17.10.2011. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioner will not be arrested in connection with Crime No.371 of 2011 of Kodanadu Police Station, till 19.10.2011.

¶29

The petitioner shall co-operate with the investigating officer in the matter of investigation and for recovery of incriminating materials, if any. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this order before the investigating officer.”

¶30

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor that the direction in the order dated 04/10/2011 has been complied with by the petitioner.

¶31

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 04/10/2011 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,

¶32

Bail Appln.No.6881/2011 : 3 :

¶33

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:-

¶34

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

¶35

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

¶36

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

¶37

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

¶38

The Bail Application is allowed to the extent indicated

¶39

above.

¶40

K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE

¶41

skj

Thankappan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thankappan 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

Shyam Raj Vs State of Kerala

Rajagopal and Another Vs State of Kerala

Santhosh K.Gopalan Vs State of Kerala

Sasi @ Raja Gopal Vs State of Kerala

Thankachan Vs State of Kerala

Unni @ Sreekumar Vs State of Kerala