Allowed

Vincent v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC8 Aug 2012Bail Appl./5516/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court granted anticipatory bail to four accused persons facing charges under Sections 323, 324 and 308 r/w 34 IPC in an assault case. The petitioners were directed to surrender within 10 days and appeared before the magistrate on specific conditions. They must execute a bond with sureties, appear for interrogation, produce passports, and not leave Kerala without permission. The court also mand

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed. Petitioners directed to surrender within 10 days and produce before Magistrate on specified conditions including bond, surety verification, appearance for interrogation, passport pro

Vincent 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 8TH DAY OF AUGUST 2012/17TH SRAVANA 1934

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 5516 of 2012 ()

¶6

(CRIME NO.708/2012 OF PEERMADE POLICE STATION, IDUKKI DISTRICT)

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 T0 4:

¶8

1. VINCENT,, AGED 45 YEARS

¶9

S/O.ANTHONY,MOOLAYIL VEEDU,KOZHIKKANAM PUTHUVAL

¶10

ELAPPARA.

¶11

2. VIJAY,, AGED 18 YEARS

¶12

S/O VINCENT,MOOLAYIL VEEDU,KOZHIKKANAM PUTHUVAL

¶13

ELAPPARA.

¶14

3. ANTHONY,

¶15

S/O.KURISUMUTHU,MOOLAYIL VEEDU,KOZHIKKANAM PUTHUVAL ELAPPARA.

¶16

4. MARY,, AGED 60 YEARS

¶17

W/O.KURISUMUTHU,MOOLAYIL VEEDU,KOZHIKKANAM PUTHUVAL ELAPPARA.

¶18

BY ADVS.SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN

¶19

SRI.K.S.PRAVEEN

¶20

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶21

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OFKERALA,ERNAKULAM REPRESENTING SUB INSPECTOR PEERUMEDU POLICE STATION.

¶22

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. SREEJITH V.S.

¶23

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08-08-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

SCL.

¶25

N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, J.

¶26

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

¶27

B.A. No. 5516 of 2012

¶28

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

¶29

Dated this the 8^th day of August, 2012

¶30

O R D E R

¶31

Petitioners are accused 1 to 4 in Crime No.708/2012 of Peermade Police Station, Idukki District. The offences alleged against them are under Sections 323, 324 and 308 r/w 34 IPC. Apprehending arrest, this petition is filed for anticipatory bail.

¶32

The incident took place at 8.30 P.M on 17-7-2012. It is stated that the first petitioner who belonged to CITU, crossed over to another trade union-INTUC and thus the former union members had animosity towards the first petitioner. It is alleged that petitioners attacked the complainant and others.

¶33

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners 3 and 4 are the father and the mother of the first accused and the second accused is the son of the first accused. There is a counter case as Crime No.709/2012, where also the offence alleged includes Section 308 IPC.

¶34

Considering all the aspects the following directions are issued:

¶35

B.A. No. 5516 of 2012

¶36

¶37

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:

¶38

a. The accused 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.

¶39

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.

¶40

c. The accused shall produce their original passports before the learned jurisdictional

¶41

B.A. No. 5516 of 2012

¶42

¶43

Magistrate. If they are not having any valid passport, they should file an affidavit regarding the same before the Magistrate. 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.

¶44

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

¶45

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

¶46

Sd/-

¶47

N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE

¶48

Scl.

¶49

True Copy

¶50

PA to Judge

Vincent v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vincent 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

Boroster Vs State of Kerala

Nasar. M Vs State of Kerala

Abhilash Vs State of Kerala

Vishnu Vs State of Kerala

Sadanandan Vs State of Kerala

Sandeep @ Thomachen Vs the C.I. of Police, Ranni