Partly allowed

Santhosh v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC23 Jul 2012Bail Appl./4340/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is an anticipatory bail application filed under Sections 143, 147, 148, 324, 326, 427 read with 149 of the IPC. The single-judge court granted bail only after surrendering and complying with stringent conditions regarding interrogation, sureties, passport, and non-commission of similar offences.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted subject to surrender within 10 days, execution of bond with sureties, regular appearance for interrogation, production of passport, and adherence to stringent conditions prev

Santhosh Vs the 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

MONDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JULY 2012/1ST SRAVANA 1934

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 4340 of 2012 ()

¶6

CRIME NO.259/2012 OF PARIPPALLY POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED (A1):

¶8

SANTHOSH, AGED 34 YEARS, S/O.AYYAPPAN, CHARUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, VATTAKKUZHIKKAL, VILAVOORKONAM. P.O., KALLUVATHUKKAL VILLAGE, KOLLAM.

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.R.T.PRADEEP, SRI.P.BIJIMON.

¶10

RESPONDENT:

¶11

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

¶12

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.SREEJITH V.S.

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23-07-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

rs.

¶15

N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, J.

¶16

-----------------------------------

¶17

B.A.No. 4340 of 2012

¶18

-----------------------------------

¶19

Dated this the 23^rd day of July, 2012

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The petitioner is the first accused in Crime No. 529/2012 of Parippally Police Station. The offences alleged are under sections 143, 147, 148, 324, 326, 427 r/w section 149 of IPC. Apprehending arrest, this petition is filed for anticipatory bail. Other accused were granted bail earlier.

¶22

It is alleged that on account of previous enmity, this petitioner and other accused, with intent to cause grievous hurt, attacked the younger brother of the defacto complainant. It is stated that a cut injury was caused to the head of the complainant.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in fact,

¶24

the third accused Rajendran was attacked by the defacto complainant and he sustained injury, in respect of which, Crime No. 528/2012 was registered, alleging offences punishable under

¶25

¶26

B.A.No. 4340 of 2012

¶27

sections 323 and 324 of IPC.

¶28

Considering all the aspects the following directions are

¶29

issued:

¶30

The petitioner 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 petitioner but on the following conditions:

¶31

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 learned Magistrate. 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.

¶32

¶33

B.A.No. 4340 of 2012

¶34

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

¶35

c. The accused shall produce his original passport before the learned jurisdictional Magistrate. If he is not having any valid passport, he should file an affidavit regarding the same before the Magistrate.

¶36

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.

¶37

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

¶38

B.A.No. 4340 of 2012

¶39

¶40

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

¶41

N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE.

¶42

Scl.

Santhosh v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santhosh v. the 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

Abdul Salam Vs State of Kerala

Kannan Vs State of Kerala

Baby @Vavachi Vs State of Kerala

Sri.Baby Varkey Vs State of Kerala

Tessy Thomas @ Tessy Joseph Vs State of Kerala

Biju Vs State of Kerala