Partly allowed

Shanavas v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC16 Jul 2012Bail Appl./4393/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is an anticipatory bail application where the Court granted bail to the second petitioner, Nazim, subject to specific conditions, but dismissed the application for the first petitioner, Shanavas, due to the serious nature of the offences alleged against him.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted to A-8 (Nazim) subject to conditions; Bail application of A-1 (Shanavas) dismissed.

Shanavas Vs State of Kerala — Cheque Dishonour | 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 16TH DAY OF JULY 2012/25TH ASHADHA 1934

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 4393 of 2012 ()

¶6

(CRIME N0.373/2012 OF CHAVARA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT)

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED :

¶8

1. SHANAVAS (A-1), AGED 27 YEARS S/O.HANEEFA, MALAMEL KIZHEKKETHIL VADAKKUMTHALA P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶9

2. NAZIM (A-8), AGED 19 YEARS S/O.NAZAR, UPPANVILA THEKKETHIL, VADAKKUMTHALA P.O. KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.P.V.DILEEP

¶11

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶12

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

¶13

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JASMINE V.H.

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16-07-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

¶16

N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, J.

¶17

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A. No. 4393 OF 2012

¶18

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

¶19

Dated this the 16^th day of July, 2012

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

Petitioners are accused Nos. 1 and 8 in Crime No. 373/2012 of Chavara Police Station, Kollam District. The offences alleged against them are under sections 143, 147, 148, 307, 332, 225(b) and 427 r/w 149 of IPC and section 27 of the Arms Act. Apprehending arrest, this petition is filed for anticipatory bail.

¶22

It is alleged that the incident took place at 11.00 PM. It is stated that during the festival, the petitioner waved and brandished a sword and created a terrifying atmosphere. Hence he was taken into custody by the police. He attacked the complainant. At that time, 30 other persons rescued A1 and others. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that no serious injury was caused so as to attract section 307 of IPC. A8 was stated to be one of the persons who was among the group, who rescued A1 from

¶23

B.A.No.4393/2012

¶24

-2-

¶25

the custody of the police.

¶26

Considering all the aspects, A8 is granted bail on the following conditions:

¶27

The petitioner shall surrender before the Investigating Officer within two weeks 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:

¶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 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.

¶29

b. The accused shall make himself

¶30

B.A.No.4393/2012

¶31

-3-

¶32

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.

¶33

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. 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.

¶34

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

¶35

B.A.No.4393/2012

¶36

-4-

¶37

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

¶38

Considering the seriousness of the offence and gravity of the offence, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to

¶39

A1. Hence his bail application is dismissed.

¶40

Sd/- N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE.

¶41

¶42

//True copy//

¶43

P.A. to Judge

Shanavas v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shanavas 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

Asokan Vs State of Kerala

Shafeek Vs State of Kerala

Kannan @ Akhil Sasikumar Vs State of Kerala

Sethuraman.T.R. Vs Sub Inspector of Police

Shylaja Vs State of Kerala

Sreekumaran Pillai Vs State of Kerala