Allowed

Nazeer v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC17 Nov 2011Bail Appl./8064/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner accused of copyright offences under Sections 52A and 68A of the Copyright Act for having possession of pirated films, subject to conditions including appearing before the investigating officer and refraining from tampering with evidence.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted to the petitioner subject to conditions of appearing before the investigating officer and adhering to specific restrictions.

Nazeer Vs State of Kerala — 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

THURSDAY, THE 17TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 26TH KARTHIKA 1933

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 8064 of 2011() ----------------------------CRIME NO.483/2011 OF POTHENCODE POLICE STATION

¶6

PETITIONER/ACCUSED : ---------------------------

¶7

NAZEER, MANACADU VILAKOM, ALAMCODE KANIYAPURAM, PALIPURAM VILLAGE.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.M.R.SARIN

¶9

RESPONDENT(S): ---------------

¶10

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

¶11

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.R.RANJITH

¶12

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

K.T.SANKARAN, J.

¶14

B.A.No.8064 of 2011

¶15

Dated this the 17^th day of November, 2011

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.483 of 2011 of Pothencode Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram District.

¶18

The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 52A and 68A of the Copy Right Act.

¶19

The prosecution case is that on 20.7.2011, on a search conducted in the shop of the petitioner, fifteen CDs of Malayalam films were found, on which, the name of the producer, distributor and owner were not seen.

¶20

When the Bail Application came up for admission on

¶21

8.11.2011, the following order was passed :

¶22

BA 8064/11

¶23

¶24

“4. 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 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 12^th and 13^th November, 2011.

¶26

Post on 17^th November, 2011.

¶27

It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioner will not be arrested in connection with Crime No.483 of 2011 of Pothencode Police Station, till 22^nd November, 2011.

¶28

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

¶29

The petitioner shall produce a copy of this order before the investigating officer.”

¶30

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the

¶31

BA 8064/11

¶32

¶33

petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor that the direction in the order dated 8.11.2011 has been complied with by the petitioner.

¶34

Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the offence and also taking note of the fact that the direction in the order dated 8.11.2011 has been complied with by the petitioner, I am of the view that anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner.

¶35

There will be a direction that in the event of arrest of the petitioner, the officer in charge of the police station shall release him on bail on his executing bond for ` 10,000/- with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the officer concerned, subject to the following conditions :

¶36

A) The petitioner shall report before the investigating officer between 9 A.M. and 11 A.M. on alternate Mondays, till the final report is filed or until further orders;

¶37

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

¶38

BA 8064/11

¶39

¶40

C) The petitioner shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence ;

¶41

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

¶42

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

¶43

The Bail Application is allowed to the extent indicated

above.

K.T.SANKARAN

JUDGE

csl

Nazeer v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nazeer 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

Arun Raj Vs Sub Inspector of Police, &Another

V.P.Nandakumar and Others Vs State of Kerala

Satheesh & Another Vs State of Kerala

Sathyan Vs S.I. of Police, Kottiyam

Anilkumar Vs State of Kerala

Rajeev Vs State of Kerala