Allowed

Anilkumar v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC8 Mar 2013Bail Appl./1290/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed a bail application filed by the fourth accused in a rape case. The court held that while the claim of innocence could not be accepted, continued custody was unnecessary as no apprehension of absconding was expressed.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail by executing a bond of Rs. 25,000 with two solvent sureties each for Rs. 25,000 with specific reporting and conduct conditions.

Anilkumar Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF MARCH 2013/17TH PHALGUNA 1934 Bail Appl..No. 1290 of 2013 () -----------------------------CRIME NO. 868/2012 OF NADAKKAVU POLICE STATION , KOZHIKODE

¶5

ACCUSED(S)/ACCUSED NO. 4:

¶6

ANILKUMAR AGED 42 YEARS S/O. THANKAPPAN, THACHANKARI HOUSE, KANJIRAMPARA KARUTHUMKUZHI, PANGOD, SASTHAMANGALAM THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶7

BY ADVS.SRI.B.RAMAN PILLAI SRI.R.ANIL SRI.SUJESH MENON V.B. SRI.T.ANIL KUMAR SRI.MANU TOM SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM (NILACKAPPILLIL) M.SUNILKUMAR

¶8

COMPLAINANT(S)/COMPLAINANT:

¶9

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

¶10

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. ROY THOMAS

¶11

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION 08-03-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶12

¶13

P.BHAVADASAN, J.

¶14

Bail Application No. 1290 OF 2013 ---------------------------------------

¶15

Dated this the 08^th day of March, 2013.

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

Petitioner is the fourth accused in Crime No. 868 of 2012 of

¶18

Nadakkavu Police Station who is alleged to have committed offences punishable under Sections 366(A) and 376 read with 109 of IPC.

¶19

The petitioner would say that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated. According to him, he has not committed any act which would constitute an offence. At any rate, according to the petitioner, he has been in custody from 29.12.2012 and his continued custody is unnecessary.

¶20

The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the petition and pointed out that the offences attributed to the petitioner are serious and grave in nature and the investigation is still going on. The learned Public Prosecutor also pointed out that the petitioner is involved in another crime for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC.

¶21

B.A.No.1290/2013

¶22

¶23

After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor and having perused the records, the claim of the petitioner that he is innocent cannot be accepted. There are materials to show his involvement in the case. A deeper probe into veracity of the allegations is not warranted at this point of time. Since no apprehension is expressed by the Investigating Agency that if the petitioner is released on bail, he is likely to abscond, his continued custody appears to be unnecessary.

¶24

The petition is allowed as follows:

¶25

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

¶26

B.A.No.1290/2013

¶27

¶28

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

¶29

iii) The petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer on every Wednesday between 9 a.m and 10 a.m until further orders.

¶30

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

¶31

v) The petitioner shall surrender his passport before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court concerned and if he does not possess a valid passport, an affidavit to that effect shall be filed before the Magistrate court concerned.

¶32

B.A.No.1290/2013

¶33

¶34

vi) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while he is

¶35

on bail.

¶36

vii) If any of the conditions is violated, the bail granted shall stand cancelled and the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court concerned, on being satisfied of the said fact, may take such steps as are available to him in law.

¶37

P.BHAVADASAN JUDGE

¶38

Anilkumar v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anilkumar 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

Shibu Vs State of Kerala

Manikandan Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Reghunathan Nair Vs Sub Inspector of Police

Suresh Vs State of Kerala

Ganeshkumr @ Omanakuttan Vs State of Kerala

Nabeesa @ Naseema Vs Sub Inspector of Police