Allowed

Manu v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC6 Dec 2012Bail Appl./8566/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed a bail application filed by six accused persons. The court exercised its extraordinary jurisdiction and granted bail on several conditions, including surrender by a specified date, execution of a bail bond with sureties, and restrictions on tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted on conditions including surrender, bond execution with sureties, and reporting requirements.

Manu 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 P.BHAVADASAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2012/15TH AGRAHAYANA 1934

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 8566 of 2012 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 1295/2012 OF KALLAMBALAM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶7

PETITIONERS :

¶8

1. MANU,

¶9

S/O. MOHANAN, AGED 23 YEARS, NALLECENT COLONY, MULLARAMKODU MANNAMBUR P.O.

¶10

2. SANCHU,

¶11

S/O. BAPPUTTY, AGED 22 YEARS, CHARUVILLA PUTHENVEEDU, THOPPUVILLA MANNAMBUR P.O.

¶12

3. SINU,

¶13

S/O. SATHYASEELAN, AGED 24 YEARS,

¶14

VILLAYIL VEEDU, MANNAMBUR P.O.

¶15

4. BIJU,

¶16

S/O. THULASI, AGED 22 YEARS,

¶17

NALLECENT COLONY, MULLARAMKODU MANNAMBUR P.O.

¶18

5. SONY,

¶19

S/O. SOMAN, AGED 23 YEARS, CHARUVILLA PUTHEN VEEDU, THOPPUVILLA MANNAMBUR P.O.

¶20

6. MANIKKANDAN, S/O. SUKUMARAN, AGED 24 YEARS, CHARUVILA PUTHENVEEDU, THOPPUVILLA MANNAMBUR P.O.

¶21

BY ADVS.SRI.R.MANOJ

¶22

SMT.SINDHU MANOJ SMT.S.S.MEERA SMT.P.P.BLESSY MOL

¶23

RESPONDENT :

¶24

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM (ON BEHALF OF THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE KALLAMBALAM POLICE STATION).

¶25

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. V.S. SREEJITH

¶26

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06-12-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Mn

¶27

P. BHAVADASAN, J.

¶28

- - - - B.A. No. 8566 of 2012

¶29

- - - - Dated this the 6^th day of December, 2012.

¶30

ORDER

¶31

Petitioners are accused Nos. 1 to 6 in Crime No.

¶32

1295 of 2012 of Kallambalam Police Station, who are alleged to have committed offences punishable under Section 308 read with Section 34 I.P.C.

¶33

The petitioners would say that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated with ulterior motive. They claim that they have not committed any act which constitute an offence. At any rate, it is contended that, the incorporation of Section 308 I.P.C. is deliberate to see that the petitioners are denied bail.

¶34

Learned Public Prosecutor was also heard.

¶35

After having heard learned counsel for the

¶36

petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor and after perusing the records made available by the learned Public Prosecutor, it is felt that this is a fit case where the

¶37

B.A.8566/2012.

¶38

¶39

extraordinary jurisdiction needs to be exercised in favour of the petitioners.

¶40

Therefore, this application is allowed on the following conditions:

¶41

i) Petitioners shall surrender before the Investigating Officer on or before 15.12.2012, who after interrogation shall produce them before the JFCM court concerned, which court, on applications for bail being moved by the petitioners, shall release them on bail on each of them executing a bond for a sum of Rs.15,000/(Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the said court.

¶42

ii) The learned Magistrate may ensure the identity of the sureties and the veracity of the tax receipts produced by the sureties for the purpose of executing the bond.

¶43

B.A.8566/2012. 3

¶44

iii) Petitioners shall report before the Investigating Officer as and when required by him.

¶45

iv) Petitioners shall not tamper or attempt to tamper with the evidence or influence or try to influence the witnesses.

¶46

v) If any condition is violated, bail granted to the petitioners shall stand cancelled, and the JFCM concerned may take such steps as are available to him in law.

¶47

P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE

¶48

sb.

Manu v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manu 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

Bhuvanachandran Vs State of Kerala

Vasavan Vs State of Kerala

Rahul R Vs State of Kerala

Niyas Mohammed Vs State of Kerala

Shaju Vs State of Kerala

Bijoy Vs Kerala State