Allowed

Rajan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC13 Jun 2012Bail Appl./3500/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Ernakulam considered a bail application filed by two accused persons alleged to be involved in public fighting and related offences. The court directed surrender within 10 days and prescribed conditions including bonds, interrogation availability, passport production, and territorial restrictions.

What did the court decide?

Grants anticipatory bail on conditions including surrender within 10 days, bond execution, interrogation availability, passport submission, and territorial restrictions.

Rajan 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

WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JUNE 2012/23RD JYAISHTA 1934

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 3500 of 2012 (B) -----------------------------CRIME NO.862/2012 TOWN SOUTH POLICE STATION PALAKKAD DISTRICT

¶6

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 & 2: -------------------------

¶7

1. RAJAN, S/O.SUBRAMANIAN, THIRUNELLAYIPALAYAM, PALAKKAD.

¶8

2. SUMESH, S/O.ANNADURAI, THIRUNELLAYIPALAYAM, PALAKKAD.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.VINOD KUMAR.C

¶10

COMPLAINANT:

¶11

STATE REPRESENTED BY SI OF POLICE, TOWN SOUTH POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶12

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

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13-06-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

¶15

N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, J.

¶16

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

¶17

B.A.No. 3500 of 2012

¶18

========================= Dated this the 13^th day of June, 2012

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Petitioners are A1 and A2 in Crime no.862/2012 of Town South Police Station, Palakkad. The offences alleged against them are under Secs.143, 147, 148, 341, 323 and 308 r/w149 of IPC. Apprehending arrest, this application for anticipatory bail is filed. It is stated that A3 to A6 were granted bail to the learned Sessions Judge. The alleged incident took place at 1.30AM on 01.05.2012. Accused persons belong to one union and the complainant and others belong to another union, it is stated.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that altercations took place as to who were to unload the articles. Thus, there was an incident. It is pointed out that the two injured persons were under the influence of

B.A.No.3500/2012

: 2 :

Alcohol.

Considering all the aspects, the following directions are issued:

¶26

The petitioners shall surrender before the Investigating Officer within 10 days from today. After 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 petitioners but on the following conditions:

¶27

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.

¶28

B.A.No.3500/2012

¶29

: 3 :

¶30

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 and Fridays between 9.30 AM to 11.30 AM until further orders.

¶31

c. The accused shall produce their original passports before the learned jurisdictional Magistrate. If they are not having any valid passport, they should file an affidavit regarding the same before the Magistrate.

¶32

d. The accused will also file an affidavit that they will abide by all the conditions as mentioned above and that they will not commit any offence similar to the offence involved in this case and that they 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.

¶33

B.A.No.3500/2012

¶34

: 4 :

¶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

Rajan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajan 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

Hamsa K.V Vs State of Kerala

B.S.Satheesh Shetty Vs Excise Range Officer

Ajithkumar Menon Vs State of Kerala

Gavaskar Vs State of Kerala

Jinesh Vs State of Kerala

M.R.Kumaran Vs C.I. of Police, Vigilance