Allowed

P.M.Manoraj v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC21 Jan 2013Bail Appl./142/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bail application allowed the release of the petitioner, second accused in a series attempt murder and explosives case, subject to strict conditions including sureties, reporting, and geographic restrictions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail with two sureties for Rs.35,000 each, ordered to report to IO on Thursdays, not to leave Thalasserry district, and not to tamper with evidence.

P.M.Manoraj 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

MONDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY 2013/ 1ST MAGHA 1934

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 142 of 2013 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 305/2007 OF THALASSERY POLICE STATION , KANNUR DISTRICT

¶7

PETITIONER/2ND ACCUSED :

¶8

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

¶9

P.M.MANORAJ, AGED 31 YEARS S/O.BALAN,PUTHANPARAMBATH HOUSE, KUTHUPARAMBA AMSOM NARAVOOR,KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.K.SIJU SMT.CHITHRA.S.BABU

¶11

RESPONDENT/STATE :

¶12

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

¶13

STATE OF KERALA THROUGH DETECTIVE INSPECTOR,CBCID,HHW-III KANNUR SUB UNIT REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM.

¶14

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. V.S. REEJITH

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21-01-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

¶17

P. BHAVADASAN, J.

¶18

- - - - B.A. No. 142 of 2013

¶19

¶20

Dated this the 21^st day of January, 2013.

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Petitioner is the second accused in Crime No. 305 of 2007 of Thalassery Police Station, re-numbered as CR. No. 164/CR/07. CBCID, Kannur, for having committed offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148 and 307 read with Section 149 I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act along with the other accused persons.

¶23

The allegation is that on 16.6.2007 at 3.20 p.m., the accused in furtherance of their common object threw country bomb to a motor car of a person with the intention of causing his murder. The petitioner would say that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated and he had no role to play in the incident. It is further stated that the petitioner has been in custody from 5.11.2012 and his continued custody is unnecessary.

¶24

B.A.142/2013. 2

¶25

Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the petition by contending that the involvement of the petitioner is evident from the records and that his claim that he is innocent cannot be accepted. It is also pointed out that the petitioner is also involved in another case, in which the offence alleged is one under Section 302 I.P.C. Learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that investigation is still going on.

¶26

After having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor and after having perused the CD, the claim of the petitioner that he is innocent cannot be accepted. His involvement is clear from the materials available on record. A deeper probe is not warranted at this point of time. The fact remains that the petitioner has been in custody from 5.11.2012 onwards. A good part of the investigation must have been completed by now. As no apprehension is expressed by the investigating agency that if the petitioner is released on bail, he will

¶27

B.A.142/2013.

¶28

¶29

abscond, it is felt that continued custody of the petitioner is not necessary.

¶30

Therefore, this application is allowed on the following conditions:

¶31

i) Petitioner shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.35,000/- (Rupees Thirty Five Thousand only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of JFCM, Thalasserry.

¶32

ii) The learned Magistrate may ensure the identity of the sureties and also the veracity of the tax receipts that are sought to be produced at the time of executing the bond.

¶33

iii) Petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer on every Thursday between 9 a.m. and 10 a.m. till final report is laid.

¶34

iv) Petitioner shall not leave the District of Thalasserry without the permission or sanction of the Magistrate concerned.

¶35

B.A.142/2013.

¶36

¶37

v) Petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail.

¶38

vi) Petitioner shall not tamper or attempt to tamper with the evidence or influence or try to influence the witnesses.

¶39

vii) If any of the conditions is violated, bail granted to the petitioner shall stand cancelled, and the JFCM concerned may take such steps as are available to him in law.

¶40

P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE

¶41

sb.

P.M.Manoraj v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.M.Manoraj 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pradeep Vs State of Kerala

Sathyan Vs State of Kerala

T.B.Majeed Vs State of Kerala

Sundaran Vs State of Kerala

Sajeev.P. Vs Sub Inspector of Police

Najeema Vs Sub Inspector of Police