Allowed

Bineesh v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC28 Nov 2013Bail Appl./7107/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed the bail application of the sole accused in a case involving offences under Sections 451, 294, 323 and 354 of IPC, granting bail subject to specific conditions including surrender, reporting, and restrictions on interfering with evidence or witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted on conditions: surrender by 05.12.2013, execute bond of Rs.15,000 with sureties, report every Wednesday, no tampering with evidence or witnesses.

Bineesh 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 28TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2013/7TH AGRAHAYANA, 1935

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 7107 of 2013 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 298/2013 OF POOVAR POLICE STATION , THIRUVANANDAPURAM

¶7

PETITIONER/SOLE ACCUSED:

¶8

BINEESH, AGED 33 YEARS, S/O.GOPI, PALLIVILA VEEDU, ARUMANOOR, POOVAR P.O, THIRUPURAM VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SMT.MINI GANGADHARAN

¶10

RESPONDENT:

¶11

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

¶12

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.DHANESH MATHEW MANJOORAN

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28-11-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

¶15

P.BHAVADASAN, J.

¶16

Bail Application No.7107 OF 2013

¶17

Dated this the 28^th day of November, 2013.

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

The petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.298/2013 of Poovar Police Station who is alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Sections 451, 294(b), 323 and 354 of Indian Penal Code. The allegation is that on 24.04.2013 at about

¶20

8 p.m, the petitioner trespassed into the house of the de facto complainant and caused injuries to her apart from trying to outrage her modesty.

¶21

The petitioner would say that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the matter. According to him, no such incident has taken place and it is as a retaliatory measure to the complaint filed by the father of the petitioner against the de facto complainant which gave rise to registration of Crime No.299/2013 of Poovar Police Station that the present complaint has been filed. The petitioner says that he has not committed any act as alleged.

¶22

B.A.No.7107/2013

¶23

¶24

Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the petition and pointed out that the investigation is at an infant stage.

¶25

After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Public Prosecutor and also after having perused the records, it may not be possible at this point of time to accept the plea of the petitioner that he is totally innocent. There seems to be some substance in the complaint that the incident may not have taken place as alleged.

¶26

Considering the totality of the circumstances, it is felt that this is a fit case where extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court needs to be exercised in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, the application is allowed on the following conditions:

¶27

i) The petitioner shall surrender before the Investigating Officer on or before 05.12.2013 who, after interrogation, shall produce him before the Court concerned, which court, on application for bail being moved by the petitioner, shall release him on bail on his executing bond for a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the Court concerned.

¶28

B.A.No.7107/2013

¶29

¶30

ii) The Court concerned shall ensure the identity of the sureties and also the veracity of the tax receipts produced by them.

¶31

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

¶32

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

¶33

v) If any of the condition is violated, the bail granted shall stand cancelled and the Court concerned, on being satisfied of the said fact, may take such steps as are available to it in law.

¶34

Sd/-

¶35

P.BHAVADASAN JUDGE

¶36

smp

¶37

// True Copy //

¶38

P.A. to Judge.

Bineesh v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bineesh 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

Abhilash T.V. Vs State of Kerala

Jose Binu Vs State of Kerala

Unnikrishnan Vs State of Kerala

Joji Jose Vs Soniya P.J.

Benny John Vs State of Kerala

Anil Sankaran Vs State of Kerala