Allowed

Santhosh S. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC7 Dec 2012Bail Appl./6368/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a bail application filed by two accused persons charged with robbery and unlawful assembly. The petitioners were directed to surrender by a specific date, execute a bond, and comply with various conditions including not tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses. Bail was granted upon furnishing sureties.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; petitioners directed to surrender by 15.12.2012, execute bond with sureties, and comply with conditions regarding interrogation and non-interference.

Santhosh S. 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 P.BHAVADASAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2012/16TH AGRAHAYANA 1934

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 6368 of 2012 ()

¶6

CRIME NO.1077/2012 OF CHENGANNUR POLICE STATION IN ALAPUZHA DISTRICT

¶7

ACCUSED(S)/ACCUSED -A1:

¶8

1. SANTHOSH S., AGED 39 YEARS

¶9

S/O.K.N.SREEDHARAN EDAYILAPARAMPIL VEEDU, THITTAMEL MURI, CHENGANNUR, ALAPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶10

2. AJITH K., AGED 32 YEARS S/O. KARTHIKEYAN.K., KOLLAMPARAMPIL VEEDU, AVALAKUNNA MURI, AMBALAPUZHA TALUK, ALAPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.SAIBY JOSE KIDANGOOR

¶12

COMPLAINANT(S)/COMPLAINANT:

¶13

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶14

HIGH COURT OF KERALA , ERNAKULAM -682 031.

¶15

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.S.SREEJITH.

¶16

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07-12-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

VPV

¶18

P.BHAVADASAN, J

¶19

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

¶20

B.A No.6368 of 2012

¶21

Dated this the 7^th day of December, 2012

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

The petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 3 in Crime No.1077/2012 of Chengannur Police Station for having committed offences punishable under Section 392 r/w 34 of IPC.

¶24

The allegation against the petitioners is that they forcefully deprived the defacto complainant of a cheque for Rs.1 crore, which was returned unpaid on presentation.

¶25

The petitioners would say that they are totally innocent and have been falsely implicated with ulterior motive.

¶26

The learned Public Prosecutor was also heard.

¶27

On going through the records it is not discernible the

¶28

exact role of the petitioners. A deeper probe into the matter is unwarranted at this point of time.

¶29

Suffice to say that, considering the materials available on record, it is felt that it is fit case where extraordinary jurisdiction needs to be exercised in favour of the petitioners. Accordingly the petition is allowed as follows:

¶30

: 2:

¶31

B.A No.6368 of 2012

¶32

i) The petitioners shall surrender before the Investigating Officer on or before 15.12.2012, who after interrogation shall produce them before the JFCM concerned and on applications for bail moved by the petitioners, the learned Magistrate shall release the petitioners on bail on each of them executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the said Court.

¶33

ii) The learned Magistrate shall ensure the identity of the sureties and also the veracity of the tax receipts before granting bail.

¶34

Iii) The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer concerned for interrogation as and when required by him until further orders.

¶35

iv) The petitioners shall not tamper or attempt to tamper with the evidence or influence or try to influence the witness.

¶36

v) If any of the condition is violated, the bail granted shall stand cancelled and the JFCM concerned, on being satisfied of the said fact, may take such proceedings as are available to him in law.

¶37

P.BHAVADASAN Judge

¶38

Santhosh S. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santhosh S. 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

Niyas Mohammed Vs State of Kerala

Shaju Vs State of Kerala

Bijoy Vs Kerala State

Milton N.J. Vs State of Kerala

Ramachandra Menon Vs State of Kerala

Sminu Vs State of Kerala