Allowed

Sali Damodaran v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC1 Dec 2012Bail Appl./8708/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application regarding offences under the Immoral Traffic Prevention Act, the court released the first accused on bail despite an ongoing investigation, noting that another accused was already granted bail and no apprehension of absconding existed. Conditions included reporting and non-interference with witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail bond of Rs.25,000 with two sureties each of like amount; conditions to appear weekly and not tamper with evidence.

Sali Damodaran Vs the 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

SATURDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2012/10TH AGRAHAYANA 1934

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 8708 of 2012 ()

¶6

-----------------------------(CRIME NO.2302/2012 OF THRISSUR EAST POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT)

¶7

PETITIONER/1ST ACCUSED:

¶8

SALI DAMODARAN, AGED 45 YEARS, W/O.CHANDRAN, KODDOTHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, (KOLOTHUPRAMBIL HOUSE) SULTHAN BATHERY, NENMENY P.O., WAYANAD DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.P.A.MUJEEB

¶10

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶11

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THRISSUR EAST POLICE STATION, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-31.

¶12

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.S.SREEJITH

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01-12-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

Kss

¶15

P.BHAVADASAN, J.

¶16

--------------------------------------------B.A. No.8708 of 2012

¶17

Dated this the 1^st day of December, 2012

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

Petitioner who is the first accused is alleged to have committed offences punishable under Sections 3(1), 4(1) and 5(1) of the Immoral Traffic Prevention Act.

¶20

The incident which gave rise to the crime is alleged to have occurred on 19.10.2012 at 2.45 pm when on the police station concerned getting reliable information conducted search of the house which was taken on rent by the petitioner and found immoral activities being carried on there. The persons who are found indulging in immoral activities were also taken into custody. The petitioner was also booked for the offences.

¶21

The petitioner would say that the allegations against her are false and she has been unnecessarily implicated without any justification. She claims to be running a catering service and she would say she had nothing to do with the incident. At any rate, it is pointed out by her that she has been in custody from 16.11.2012 and also the fact that the other accused have been released on bail. It is contended that the continued custody of the petitioner is unnecessary.

¶22

The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the petition pointing out that the investigation is still going on.

¶23

On hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Public Prosecutor and on going through the records made available for

¶24

B.A. No.8708 of 2012 2

¶25

perusal the claim of the petitioner that she is innocent cannot be countenanced. Determination of the veracity or genuineness of the allegations does not arise for consideration now. However, considering the fact that the petitioner has been in custody from 16.11.2012 onwards and also the fact that the other accused have been granted bail, since no apprehension is expressed by the investigating agency that if released on bail the petitioner is likely to abscond, her continued custody appears to be unnecessary. The petition is allowed as follows:

¶26

The petitioner shall be released on bail on her executing a bond for Rs.25,000/-(Rupees Twenty five thousand only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-I, Thrichur.

¶27

The learned Magistrate shall ensure the identity of the sureties and veracity of the tax receipts produced by the sureties.

¶28

3)The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer on every Wednesday between 9 A.M. and 10 A.M till final report is laid.

¶29

The petitioner shall not tamper or attempt to tamper with the evidence or influence or try to influence the witnesses.

¶30

B.A. No.8708 of 2012 3

¶31

If any of the condition is violated, the bail

¶32

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.

¶33

P.BHAVADASAN JUDGE

¶34

cms

Sali Damodaran v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sali Damodaran v. the 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

Sarat Chandran Vs State of Kerala

Ahammed Nias N.A. Vs State of Kerala

Usman Vs the Station House Officer, Chandra Police Station

Dr.Abdul Kader Thidil Vs State of Kerala

Albert Vs State of Kerala

Mini Mol Vs State of Kerala