Allowed

Jackson v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC25 Oct 2011Bail Appl./7254/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, accused No.6 in a case involving affray and other IPC offences, as he had complied with a prior direction to appear for inquiries.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted subject to conditions including periodic reporting, cooperation with investigation, and surrender on arrest via a bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties.

Jackson 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 25TH OCTOBER 2011 / 3RD KARTHIKA 1933

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 7254 of 2011() ----------------------------CRMP.2082/2011 of ADDL.D.C. & ADDL.MACT,ALAPPUZHA. CRIME NO.338/2011 OF PATTANAKKAD POLICE STATION ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT

¶6

PETITIONER: ACCUSED No.6 : ------------------------JACKSON, AGED 23 YEARS, S/O. PIOUS, KURISHINKAL, KADAKKARAPALLY, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶7

BY ADV. SRI.S.SANAL KUMAR SMT.BHAVANA VELAYUDHAN SMT.T.J.SEEMA

¶8

RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT -------------------------STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.

¶9

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.T.K.RENJITH

¶10

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

¶11

K.T.SANKARAN, J.

¶12

Bail Appln.No.7254 of 2011

¶13

Dated this the 25^th day of October, 2011

¶14

ORDER

¶15

This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section

¶16

438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is accused No.6 in Crime No.338 of 2011 of Pattanakkad Police Station, Alappuzha District.

¶17

The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 324, 326, 308 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶18

When the Bail Application came up for admission on 14/10/2011, the following order was passed:

¶19

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

¶20

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 the investigating officer. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the petitioner to appear before the investigating officer on 19^th October, 2011 and 20^th October, 2011.

¶21

Bail Appln.No.7254/2011

¶22

: 2 :

¶23

Post on 25^th October, 2011.

¶24

It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioner will not be arrested in connection with Crime No.338 of 2011 of Pattanakkad Police Station, till 29^th October, 2011.

¶25

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

¶26

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the direction in the order dated 14/10/2011 has been complied with by the petitioner.

¶27

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 14/10/2011 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, 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:-

¶28

Bail Appln.No.7254/2011

¶29

: 3 :

¶30

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;

¶31

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

¶32

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

¶33

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

¶34

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

¶35

The Bail Application is allowed to the extent indicated

¶36

above.

¶37

K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE

¶38

skj

Jackson v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jackson 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

Abdullakutty Vs State of Kerala

Eldo K.David Vs State of Kerala

T.P.Sajeev Vs Circle Inspector of Police

Thankachan Vs State

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

Santhoshkumar.B Vs State of Kerala and Another