Allowed

Paul Durai v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC10 Jan 2013Bail Appl./1/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed bail to two accused persons charged under various sections of IPC for offences relating to unlawful assembly and causing hurt to police officers, subject to standard conditions including execution of bond and non-tampering with evidence.

What did the court decide?

Accused released on bail on executing a bond forRs.25,000 with two solvent sureties, reporting weekly to the Investigating Officer, and not tampering with evidence or witnesses.

Paul Durai 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

THURSDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY 2013/20TH POUSHA 1934

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 1 of 2013 () --------------------------CMP.3729/2012 of J.M.F.C.,PEERUMEDU IN CRIME NO. 1266/2012 OF PEERMADE POLICE STATION

¶6

ACCUSED(S)/ACCUSED 1 AND 2:

¶7

1. PAUL DURAI, AGED 53 YEARS

¶8

S/O. THANKAYYA, SIJO ANNAI BHAVAN

¶9

LAKSHAMVEEDU BHAGOM, ELAPPARA VILLAGE.

¶10

2. SIJO , AGED 21 YEARS

¶11

S/O. PAUL DURAI, SIJO ANNAI BHAVAN

¶12

LAKSHAMVEEDU BHAGOM, ELAPPARA VILLAGE.

¶13

BY ADVS.SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN SRI.K.S.PRAVEEN

¶14

COMPLAINANT(S)/COMPLAINANT : ----------------------------

¶15

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTING SUB INSPECTOR, PEERMADE POLICE STATION.

¶16

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. LALIZA T.Y.

¶17

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10-01-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

¶19

P.BHAVADASAN, J.

¶20

---------------------------------------------------BA No.1 of 2013

¶21

Dated this the 10^th day of January 2013

¶22

Order

¶23

The petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.1266/12 for having committed the offences punishable under Ss.143, 147, 148, 452, 294(b), 332, 324 r/w S.149 IPC.

¶24

The allegation against the petitioners is that on 25.12.2012 at 8 pm, the petitioners and others formed themselves into an unlawful assembly, trespassed into the Vagamon Police outpost, caused hurt to the police officers and also obstructed them from discharging their official duties. The petitioners would say that the incident had not occurred as alleged by the Prosecution. According to them, the second petitioner was riding on a motor bike, which was intercepted by the police officers. He was manhandled by them. On coming to know of the incident, the father of the second petitioner rushed to the place and there was an altercation between the police officers and the petitioners. The petitioners submit that in order to escape from the mischief committed by the police officers, a false case has been foisted against them. It is pointed out that

¶25

BA 1/13

¶26

¶27

they are totally innocent and have been implicated with ulterior motives. At any rate, they have been in custody from 26.12.2012 and a a good part of the investigation must have been completed by now. So, their continued custody is unnecessary. They, therefore, seek bail.

¶28

The learned Public Prosecutor very vehemently opposed the application and pointed out that the investigation is still going on. The CD was made available for perusal.

¶29

On going through the CD, the claim of the petitioners that they are totally innocent, cannot be accepted. But, the veracity of the allegation does not arise for consideration at this point of time. The fact remains that the petitioners have been in custody from 26.12.2012 onwards and a good part of the investigation must have been completed by now. Since no apprehension is expressed by the Investigating Agency that the petitioners are likely to abscond if released on bail, it is felt that the continued custody of the petitioners is unnecessary. The application is accordingly allowed subject to the following conditions :

¶30

BA 1/13

¶31

¶32

The petitioners shall be released on bail, on each of them executing a bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the JFCM-I, Peermade.

¶33

The learned Magistrate shall ensure the identity of the sureties and the veracity of the tax receipts produced by the sureties, before granting bail to the petitioners.

¶34

The petitioners shall report before the Investigating Officer on every Friday between 9 am and 10 am, till final report is filed.

¶35

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

¶36

If any of the conditions is violated, the bail granted shall stand cancelled and the JFCM concerned on being satisfied of the said fact, may take such action as available to him in law.

¶37

P.Bhavadasan, Judge

¶38

sta

¶39

BA 1/13 4

¶40

BA 1/13 5

Paul Durai v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Paul Durai 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

Fadhil Ahammed Vs State of Kerala

Faizal Vs State of Kerala

Geetha Vs State of Kerala

Leela @ Kunja Vs the State of Kerala

Raveendran Vs State of Kerala

Albert Antony @ Kunjan Shaiju Vs State of Kerala