Partly allowed

Aneesh Kumar.T v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC7 Jun 2012Bail Appl./3086/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court disposed of bail application filed by an accused in a criminal case. The court directed the accused to surrender within 10 days for interrogation. Bail from the Magistrate was allowed subject to strict conditions including bond execution, passport submission, and appearance for interrogation.

What did the court decide?

Accused to surrender for interrogation; Magistrate to grant bail subject to conditions of bond, sureties, interrogation attendance, and passport submission.

Aneesh Kumar.T Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JUNE 2012/17TH JYAISHTA 1934

¶5

Bail Appl.No. 3086 of 2012 () ------------------------------

¶6

CRIME NO.266/2012 OF EROOR POLICE STATION, KOLLAM

¶7

ACCUSED(S):

¶8

ANEESH KUMAR.T, S/O THAMBI, PANAMOOTTIL VEEDU, NADUKUNNUMPURAM, EROOR KARA, EROOR VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT

¶9

BY ADV. DR.PAULY MATHEW MURICKEN

¶10

COMPLAINANT(S):

¶11

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

¶12

EROOR POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT-681 008.

¶13

BY ADV.SMT.JASMINE.V.H, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07-06-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

¶16

N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, J.

¶17

==================

¶18

B.A.No. 3086 of 2012

¶19

========================= Dated this the 7^th day of June, 2012

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Petitioner is the accused in Crime no.266/2012 of Eroor police station, Kollam. The offences alleged against him are under Secs.323, 324, 294(b), 452 and 354 of IPC. It is alleged that the petitioner trespassed into the house of the complainant and beat him with a tapioca stick and also outraged her modesty.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the husband of the complainant was hot drunk and was making nuisance to neighbouring people and so neighbourers had questioned the same. Being the neighbourer, the petitioner had also questioned the same and thus a false case has been filed.

¶23

Considering all the aspects, the following directions are issued:

¶24

The petitioner shall surrender before the Investigating Officer within 10 days from today. After

¶25

B.A.No.3086/2012

¶26

: 2 :

¶27

interrogation the accused shall be produced before the learned Magistrate. When applied for bail by the accused, the learned Magistrate can, considering the nature of the case, grant bail to the petitioner but on the following conditions:

¶28

a. The accused shall execute a bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court. If in case the Magistrate has any doubt about the genuineness or correctness of the tax receipts produced by the sureties, the learned Magistrate can insist for production of the attested photo copies of the original title deeds of the sureties.

¶29

b. The accused shall make themselves available for interrogation by the Investigating Officer and that they should appear before the Investigating Officer on all Mondays between 9.30 AM to 11.30 AM until further orders.

¶30

c. The accused shall produce his original passport before the learned jurisdictional

¶31

B.A.No.3086/2012

¶32

: 3 :

¶33

Magistrate. If he is not having any valid passport, he should file an affidavit regarding the same before the Magistrate.

¶34

d. The accused will also file an affidavit that he will abide by all the conditions as mentioned above and that he will not commit any offence similar to the offence involved in this case and that he shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶35

e. The accused and the sureties shall not leave State of Kerala without the prior permission of the learned Magistrate.

¶36

f. The learned Magistrate will also ensure the identity of the sureties by insisting production of electoral photo identity cards/Driving licence etc.

¶37

N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE

¶38

das

Aneesh Kumar.T v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aneesh Kumar.T 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

Karayi Rajan Vs CBI

Jose Linaker Celho Vs State of Kerala

Nithin Vs State of Kerala

Praveen Vs State of Kerala

Deepan Vs State of Kerala

Vishnu Vs State of Kerala