Allowed

Kannan @ Akhil Sasikumar v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC13 Jul 2012Bail Appl./4591/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners in a criminal case. The court directed the petitioners to surrender within two weeks, execute a bond with sureties, produce passports, and abide by specific conditions including not leaving Kerala without permission. The Magistrate is empowered to grant bail subject to these conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners directed to surrender within two weeks; conditions issued for future bail grant by Magistrate including bond execution, passport production, and compliance with specific reporting requirem

Kannan @ Akhil Sasikumar 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

FRIDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JULY 2012/22ND ASHADHA 1934

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 4591 of 2012 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 497/2012 OF POOYAPPALLI POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 3 & 4 :

¶8

1. KANNAN @ AKHIL SASIKUMAR, AGED 22 YEARS, S/O.SASIKUMAR, ROAD VILA VEEDU KUDAVATTOOR, KOTTARAKKARA.

¶9

2. KARTHIK @ AKHIL SASIKUMAR, AGED 20 YEARS, S/O.SASIKUMAR, ROAD VILA VEEDU KUDAVATTOOR, KOTTARAKKARA.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.D.AJITHKUMAR

¶11

RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT :

¶12

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

¶13

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. JASMINE V.H.

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13-07-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

¶16

N. K. BALAKRISHNAN, J.

¶17

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

¶18

B. A. No. 4591 of 2012

¶19

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

¶20

Dated this the 13^th day of July, 2012

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

Petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 5 in Crime No. 497 of 2012 of Pooyappalli Police Station. Offences alleged against them are under sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 294(b) and 308 r/w section 34 IPC. Apprehending arrest, this petition is filed for anticipatory bail.

¶23

A bar hotel by name Ambalakkara Bar was closed down on a harthal day i.e., on 5-5-2012. The accused persons believed that it was done at the instance of the de facto complainant. Hence, they attacked him. It is alleged that the accused hit the complainant with a stone and had he not swerved, he would have sustained a fatal injury, to which he would have succumbed.

¶24

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in fact the de facto complainant had attacked one of the petitioners (Renjith) and he sustained injuries.

¶25

Considering all the aspects, the following directions are issued:

¶26

B.A.No.4591/2012 - 2 -

¶27

The petitioners shall surrender before the Investigating Officer within two weeks from today. After interrogation they shall be produced before the learned Magistrate. When applied for bail by the petitioners, the learned Magistrate can, considering the nature of the case, grant bail to them but on the following conditions:

¶28

a) The petitioners shall execute a bond for Rs.25,000/- (rupees twenty five thousand only) each 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 petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation by the Investigating Officer and 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.4591/2012

¶31

¶32

c) The petitioners 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.

¶33

d) The petitioners will also file an affidavit stating 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

e) The petitioners shall not leave the State of Kerala without permission of the court.

¶35

f) 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

Kannan @ Akhil Sasikumar v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kannan @ Akhil Sasikumar 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

Naresh Kumar Garg Vs State of Kerala

Nasar Vs State of Kerala

Rajeev Vs State of Kerala

Asokan Vs State of Kerala

Shafeek Vs State of Kerala

Umesh V.T Vs State of Kerala