Allowed

Renni K.Mathew & Another v. S.I of Police,Erattupetta

Kerala HC25 Oct 2011Bail Appl./6946/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court granted anticipatory bail to petitioners accused of offences under the IPC in a case involving public order and criminal intimidation. Bail was subject to conditions including reporting to the investigating officer and not tampering with witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted subject to execution of bond for Rs.10,000 each with two sureties and conditions of appearing before investigating officer, not influencing witnesses, and not committing offe

Renni K.Mathew & Another Vs S.I of Police,Erattupetta — 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 25TH OCTOBER 2011 / 3RD KARTHIKA 1933

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 6946 of 2011()

¶6

----------------------------CRIME NO.429/2011 OF ERATTUPETTA POLICE STATION

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED :

¶8

¶9

RENNI. K.MATHEW, S/O. MATHEW, AGED 39 YEARS, KUHIVELIPARAMBIL HOUSE, PROPRIETOR, HAPPY HOME APPLICANCES, MUTTOM JUNCTION, ERATTUPETTA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶10

PRADEEP KUMAR M., S/O. MOHANDAS, AGED 28 YEARS, SERVICE IN CHARGE, HAPPY HOME APPLIANCES, MUTTOM JUNCTION, ERATTUPETTA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.NOUSHAD THOTTATHIL SRI.NOORJI NOUSHAD

¶12

RESPONDENT:

¶13

¶14

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ERATTUPETTA POLICE STATION, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶15

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.T.K.RENJITH

¶16

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

K.T.SANKARAN, J.

¶18

Bail Appln.No.6946 of 2011

¶19

Dated this the 25^th day of October, 2011

¶20

ORDER

¶21

This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners are the accused persons in Crime No.429 of 2011 of Erattupetta Police Station.

¶22

The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 458, 323, 325, 294(b), 506(i) and 427 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶23

When the Bail Application came up for admission on 11/10/2011, the following order was passed:

¶24

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

¶25

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 17^th and 18^th October, 2011.

¶26

Post on 24^th October, 2011.

¶27

It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioners will not be arrested

¶28

Bail Appln.No.6946/2011

¶29

: 2 :

¶30

in connection with Crime No.429 of 2011 of Erattupetta Police Station, till 28^th October, 2011.

¶31

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

¶32

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the direction in the order dated 11/10/2011 has been complied with by the petitioners.

¶33

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 11/10/2011 has been complied with by the petitioners, I am of the view that anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioners. There will be a direction that in the event of the arrest of the petitioners, the officer in charge of the police station shall release them on bail on their executing bond for `10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) each with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the officer concerned, subject to the following conditions:-

¶34

a) The petitioners 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;

¶35

Bail Appln.No.6946/2011

¶36

: 3 :

¶37

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

¶38

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

¶39

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

¶40

e) 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

¶42

above.

¶43

K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE

¶44

skj

Renni K.Mathew & Another v. S.I of Police,Erattupetta

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Renni K.Mathew & Another v. S.I of Police,Erattupetta

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

Abdullakutty Vs State of Kerala

Eldo K.David Vs State of Kerala

T.P.Sajeev Vs Circle Inspector of Police

Thankachan Vs State

Jackson Vs State of Kerala

Santhoshkumar.B Vs State of Kerala and Another