Allowed

Thankachan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC17 Oct 2011Bail Appl./7675/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, an accused in a criminal case involving conspiracy and public nuisance. Although the petitioner initially failed to appear as directed, the court condoned the default as he subsequently appeared before the investigating officer.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted on bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties subject to conditions of reporting and non-interference.

Thankachan 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 Bail Appl..No. 7675 of 2011() ----------------------------CRIME NO.739/2011 OF ARYANAD POLICE STATION THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶5

PETITIONER/ACCUSED: --------------------THANKACHAN, AGED 48 YEARS, KOODALIBHAGOM, KOKKOTHALAH P.O., ARYANAD VILLAGE, NEDUMANGAD.

¶6

BY ADV. SRI.S.RAJEEV SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN

¶7

RESPONDENT: STATE -------------------STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM (CRIME NO.739/2011 OF ARYANAD POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT)

¶8

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.K.RAJEEV

¶9

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

¶10

K.T.SANKARAN, J.

¶11

Bail Appln.No.7675 of 2011

¶12

Dated this the 17^th day of October, 2011

¶13

ORDER

¶14

This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is accused No.1 in Crime No.739 of 2011 of Aryanad Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram District.

¶15

The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 120-B, 294(b), 324, 447 and 308 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶16

When the Bail Application came up for admission on 03/10/2011, the following order was passed:

¶17

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

¶18

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 8^th and 9^th October, 2011.

¶19

Post on 14.10.2011.

¶20

Bail Appln.No.7675/2011

¶21

: 2 :

¶22

It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioner will not be arrested in connection with Crime No.739 of 2011 of Aryanad Police Station, till 17.10.2011.

¶23

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

¶24

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioner appeared before the Investigating Officer on 11^th and 12^th October, 2011. It is true that the direction to appear was on 8^th and 9^th October, 2011. However, the failure of the petitioner to appear on 8^th and 9^th October, 2011 is condoned and appearance made by him is treated as proper compliance of the order dated 03^rd October, 2011.

¶25

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 03/10/2011 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

¶26

Bail Appln.No.7675/2011

¶27

: 3 :

¶28

only) with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the officer concerned, subject to the following conditions:-

¶29

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;

¶30

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

¶31

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

¶32

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

¶33

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

¶34

The Bail Application is allowed to the extent indicated above.

¶35

K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE

¶36

skj

Thankachan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thankachan 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

Thankappan Vs State of Kerala

Unni @ Sreekumar Vs State of Kerala