Allowed

Arun Raj v. Sub Inspector of Police, &Another

Kerala HC16 Nov 2011Bail Appl./8036/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Ernakulam granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner accused under specific offences in the Indian Penal Code, subject to conditions regarding reporting and cooperation with the investigation.

What did the court decide?

The bail application was allowed. The petitioner shall be released on bail executing a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties for the same amount, subject to specified conditions.

Arun Raj Vs Sub Inspector of Police, &Another — 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

WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 25TH KARTHIKA 1933

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 8036 of 2011() ------------------------CRIME NO.939/2011 OF NEDUMANGAD POLICE STATION THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶6

PETITIONER/2ND ACCUSED :

¶7

¶8

ARUNRAJ, S/O.RAJAGOPAL, AGED 22 YEARS, RESIDING AT NGO QUARTERS, NO.C-7, NETTA, P.S.NAGAR, NEDUMANGAD, TRIVANDRUM.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

¶10

RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT & STATE

¶11

¶12

SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NEDUMANGAD POLICE STATION, TRIVANDRUM - 695541.

¶13

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 31.

¶14

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.R.RANJITH

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

K.T.SANKARAN, J.

¶17

Bail Appln.No.8036 of 2011

¶18

Dated this the 16^th day of November, 2011

¶19

ORDER

¶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.939 of 2011 of Nedumangad Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram District.

¶21

The offences alleged against the accused are under Sections 143, 147, 149, 323, 294(b) and 332 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶22

When the Bail Application came up for admission on 04/11/2011, the following order was passed:

¶23

“3. The prosecution case is that on 24.5.2011 at 5 P.M., when a Police Constable directed the accused to move from the place in front of the police station, the accused pushed the Police Constable and threw away the wireless set.

¶24

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner 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 petitioner

¶26

Bail Appln.No.8036/2011

¶27

: 2 :

¶28

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 10^th and 11^th November, 2011.

¶29

Post on 16^th November, 2011.

¶30

It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioner will not be arrested in connection with Crime No.939 of 2011 of Nedumangad Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram District, till 22^nd November, 2011.

¶31

The petitioner 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 petitioner that the direction in the order dated 04/11/2011 has been complied with by the petitioner.

¶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 04/11/2011 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

¶34

Bail Appln.No.8036/2011

¶35

: 3 :

¶36

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 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;

¶38

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

¶39

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

¶40

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

¶41

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

¶42

The Bail Application is allowed to the extent indicated above.

¶43

K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE

¶44

skj

Arun Raj v. Sub Inspector of Police, &Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arun Raj v. Sub Inspector of Police, &Another

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

Kuriakose Vs State of Kerala

Biju Vs State of Kerala

Souda Beevi Vs the Ast.Commissioner & Another

V.P.Nandakumar and Others Vs State of Kerala

Satheesh & Another Vs State of Kerala

Abdurahim N.P. Vs State of Kerala