Allowed

Sasi v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC14 Jun 2012Bail Appl./3715/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala granted bail to two accused brothers charged with offences under Sections 294(b), 323, 326, and 308 of the IPC. They were released from immediate custody subject to specific conditions including execution of a bond, appearance before the investigating officer, and restrictions on leaving the state.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted to First Accused from 16.06.2012 and Second Accused from 20.06.2012 subject to conditions.

Sasi 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 14TH DAY OF JUNE 2012/24TH JYAISHTA 1934

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 3715 of 2012 (D)

¶6

[CRIME NO.229/2012 OF NEDUMKANDOM POLICE STATION, IDUKKI DISTRICT]

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 & 2:

¶8

1. SASI,, AGED 49 YEARS, S/O VELAYUDHAN, THEKKAPURAYIDATHIL VEEDU, ANPATHEKKAR KARA, KARUNAPURAM VILLAGE.

¶9

2. SHAJI,, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O VELAYUDHAN, THEKKEPURAYIDATHIL VEEDU, ANPATHEKKAR KARA, KARUNAPURAM VILLAGE.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.S.RAJEEV,

¶11

SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN.

¶12

RESPONDENT/ STATE:

¶13

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM (CRIME NO 229/2012 OF NEDUMKANDOM POLICE STATION, IDUKKI DISTRICT).

¶14

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. RAJESH VIJAYAN.

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14-06-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

Prv.

¶17

N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, J.

¶18

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

¶19

B.A.No. 3715 of 2012

¶20

========================= Dated this the 14^th day of June, 2012

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Petitioners are accused 1 and 2 in Crime no.229/2012 of Nedumkandom police station, Idukki District. The offences alleged against them are under Secs.294(b), 323, 326 and 308 r/w 34 of IPC. The accused are brothers. The complainant/injured is their neighbour. With regard to some disputes, there was a wordy altercation. First accused beat her with hands and the second accused voluntarily caused grievous hurt to the complainant causing fracture of the left palm by using a chopper. When the petitioners appeared before the learned Magistrate, the learned Magistrate after considering the seriousness of the offence, rightly dismissed the application for bail.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since both brothers are inside the jail the entire family is put to destitution.

¶24

B.A.No.3715/2012

¶25

: 2 :

¶26

Considering the period of detention already

¶27

undergone by the accused and in view of the submission made on behalf of the accused that they will abide by any condition that may be imposed on them, the first accused is granted bail with effect from 16.06.2012 and the second accused is granted bail with effect from 20.06.2012, subject to the following conditions:

¶28

The accused shall execute a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty 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

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.

¶30

B.A.No.3715/2012

¶31

: 3 :

¶32

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

¶33

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.

¶34

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

¶35

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

¶36

N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE

¶37

das

Sasi v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sasi 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gavaskar Vs State of Kerala

Jinesh Vs State of Kerala

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

Shaiju Vs State of Kerala

Shereef.a.G. Vs the Station House Officer

Surendran Vs the State of Kerala