Allowed

Pushkaran v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC22 Jan 2013Bail Appl./24/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed bail to the petitioners, who were accused of offences under Sections 188 and 379 IPC for violating a civil court injunction and allegedly cutting trees. The court ordered surrender and imposed reporting and inquiry prohibition conditions.

What did the court decide?

Grant of anticipatory bail subject to surrender by 31.01.2013, reporting on Thursdays, and execution of bond with sureties.

Pushkaran Vs State of Kerala — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY 2013/2ND MAGHA 1934

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 24 of 2013 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 1271/2012 OF KUNNICODE POLICE STATION , KOLLAM.

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED NOS. 1,2,3 :

¶8

1. PUSHKARAN AGED 72 YEARS

¶9

S/O. RAGHAVAN,CHARUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU,KOTTAVATTOM

¶10

CHAKKUVARAYKKAL,KOTTARAKKARA.

¶11

2. MURALEEDHARAN AGED 53 YEARS S/O. RAGHAVAN,ARUN NIVAS,GANDHIGRAMAM WARD

¶12

KOTTAVATTOM,CHAKKUVARAYKKAL,KOTTARAKKARA.

¶13

3. SUGATHAN AGED 57 YEARS S/O. RAGHAVAN,JYOTHI BHAVAN,GANDHIGRAMAM WARD KOTTAVATTOM,CHAKKUVARAYKKAL,KOTTARAKKARA.

¶14

4. LALITHAKUMARY AGED 55 YEARS D/O. SATHYAVATHY,ASHAATHRI BHAVAN,KONNAN WARD PUNALUR,PATHANAPURAM.

¶15

BY ADV. SRI.MANOJ RAMASWAMY

¶16

RESPONDENT(S):

¶17

1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM-682031.

¶18

2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE KUNNIKODE POLICE STATION,KOLLAM DISTRICT-691305.

¶19

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.S.SREEJITH

¶20

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22-01-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

tss

P.BHAVADASAN, J.

B.A. No.24 of 2013

Dated this the 22^nd day of January, 2013

¶25

ORDER

¶26

The petitioners are accused 1, 2, 3 and 5 in Crime No.1271/2012 of Kunnikode Police Station for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 188 and 379 r/w 34 of IPC.

¶27

The allegation against the petitioners is that they had violated the order of injunction issued by the civil court in relation to the dispute between them and the de facto complainant. The petitioners submitted that the allegations are totally false and they have been implicated with ulterior motives. Therefore, the petitioners seek anticipatory bail.

¶28

The learned Public prosecutor vehemently opposed the application and pointed out that investigation is at an infant stage.

¶29

In order to attract offence under Section 188 of IPC, compliance with Section 195 of Cr.P.C. may be necessary. Further allegation against the petitioners is that they cut and removed trees from the property of the de facto complainant. The petitioners would say that there was an agreement between the late mother of the de facto complainant and a sawmill owner

¶30

B.A.No.24/2013 :2:

¶31

to cut the trees from the property of the de facto complainant and the trees were cut by the latter.

¶32

After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor and attendant to the records made available before this Court, it is felt that this is a fit case where the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court needs to be exercised in favour of the petitioners. Accordingly, this application is allowed as follows :

¶33

i. The petitioners shall surrender before the Investigating Officer on or before 31.1.2013, who after interrogation shall produce them before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's court concerned, which court on bail application being moved by the petitioners shall release them on bail on each of them executing a bond for Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the said court.

¶34

ii. The learned Magistrate shall ensure the identity of the sureties and the veracity of the tax receipts, before granting bail.

¶35

iii. The petitioners shall report before the Investigating Officer on every Thursday between 9 a.m. and 10 a.m.

¶36

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

¶37

v. 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 proceedings as are available to him in law.

¶38

P.BHAVADASAN,

¶39

Judge.

¶40

okb.

Pushkaran v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pushkaran 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

P.M.Manoraj Vs State of Kerala

Sundaran Vs State of Kerala

Sajeev.P. Vs Sub Inspector of Police

Mohanan Vs State of Kerala

Lawrence Vs State of Kerala

Shamalal Vs State of Kerala