Allowed

Anil Kumar.P v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC22 Mar 2013Bail Appl./1749/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner accused under IPC Ss. 376, 313 and 406 granted bail subject to conditional bonds and reporting to police. Court found continued custody unnecessary as investigation progress was satisfactory and no flight risk existed.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail with Rs. 25,000 bond, two sureties, weekly reporting, passport surrender, and prohibition of leaving Kerala or influencing witnesses.

Anil Kumar.P Vs State of Kerala — Anticipatory Bail | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF MARCH 2012/2ND CHAITHRA 1934

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 1749 of 2013 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 110/2013 OF NADAPURAM POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED :

¶8

ANIL KUMAR P., AGED 27 YEARS S/O.RAJAN, PUTHIYOTTIL HOUSE, IRRINGANNUR KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.K.B.ARUNKUMAR SRI.RANJIT BABU

¶10

RESPONDENT :

¶11

THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED THROUGH THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER NADAPURAM POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 031.

¶12

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. R. REMA

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22-03-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

¶15

P.BHAVADASAN, J.

¶16

Bail Application No.1749 OF 2013 --------------------------------------Dated this the 22^nd day of March, 2013.

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

The petitioner is accused in Crime No.110/2013 of Nadapuram Police Station who is alleged to have committed the offence punishable under Sections 376, 313 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegation against the petitioner is that on 04.08.2012 on the promise of marrying the de facto complainant, she was taken to Mysore by the petitioner and they lived together for a while. It is alleged that the lady conceived and there was an attempt to abort the pregnancy also. Further allegation is that 5½ sovereign of gold ornaments of the de facto complainant were misappropriated by the petitioner.

¶19

The petitioner would say that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the matter. According to the petitioner, if at all there was any physical contact, it was with the consent of the victim. At any rate, it is pointed out that he has been in custody from 11.02.2013 and his continued custody is

¶20

B.A. No.1749/2013

¶21

¶22

unnecessary.

¶23

Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the petition and

¶24

pointed out that Section 313 of IPC has been subsequently

¶25

deleted and the investigation is still going on.

¶26

After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner,

¶27

the learned Public Prosecutor and after having perused the records, it is felt that the claim of the petitioner that he is totally innocent may not be acceptable. A deeper probe into the veracity of the allegations is not warranted at this point of time. The petitioner has been in custody from 11.02.2013 and a good part of the investigation must have been completed.

¶28

Since no apprehension is expressed by the investigating

¶29

agency that if the petitioner is released on bail, he is likely to abscond, his continued custody appears to be unnecessary. The application is allowed on the following conditions:

¶30

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 for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Nadapuram.

¶31

B.A. No.1749/2013

¶32

¶33

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

¶34

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

¶35

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

¶36

v) The petitioner shall not leave the State of Kerala without prior permission of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Nadapuram.

¶37

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

¶38

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

¶39

P.BHAVADASAN JUDGE

¶40

smp

Anil Kumar.P v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Kumar.P 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

Rajaneesh Vs State of Kerala

Salim B.A. Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

K.V. Suresh Vs State of Kerala

K.Sudhana Mohanan Vs State of Kerala

Naisam Vs State of Kerala

B.A. Mohammed Farooque Vs State of Kerala