Allowed

Sreenivasan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC11 Dec 2013Bail Appl./8222/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala granted bail to two accused persons charged with abetment of suicide and money lending offences. Bail was subject to specific conditions including furnishing a bond, reporting to the investigating officer, and not intimidating witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted on bond of Rs.25,000 each with two sureties, subject to reporting and non-interference conditions.

Sreenivasan Vs State of Kerala — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2013/20TH AGRAHAYANA, 1935

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 8222 of 2013 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 802/2013 OF VELLARADA POLICE STATION , THIRUVANANDAPURAM

¶7

PETITIONERS A2 AND A3:

¶8

1. SREENIVASAN, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O APPU, MAMBAZATHOTTAM, PANACHAMOODU, VELLARADA DESOM, VELLARADA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695026.

¶9

2. JOHN, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O PONNAYYAN, VADAKKUMKARA VEEDU, VENCODE, PANACHAMOODU, CHERIYAKKOLLA DESOM, KUNNATHUKAL VILLAGE - 695029.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.SASTHAMANGALAM S. AJITHKUMAR SRI.V.S.THOSHIN

¶11

RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT:

¶12

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, THROUTH THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VELLARADA POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶13

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.SREEJITH

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11-12-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

¶16

THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J.

¶17

========================= Bail Application No. 8222 of 2013 ============================ Dated this the 11^th day of December, 2013

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

Petitioners are accused 2 and 3, in Crime No. 802 of 2013 of the Vellarada police station for the offences punishable under Sec.306 r/w. Sec.34 of the Penal Code, Sec.17 and 18A of the Money Lenders Act and Sec. 3 of the Kerala Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, are in custody from 01.11.2013 and seek bail.

¶20

One Sarath and his wife consumed poison and died on 31.10.2013. It is alleged that Sarath had availed a loan from the petitioners who demanded exorbitant interest. Sarath was unable to pay the amount. The further allegation is that the petitioners harassed him with a demand for repayment of the amount, failing which, coercive steps would be taken. That instigated Sarath and his wife to commit suicide, it is alleged.

¶21

Learned Public Prosecutor, while opposing the application has submitted that some of the accused are still

¶22

B.A No. 8222 of 2013

¶23

¶24

at large and that investigation is not completed.

¶25

Learned counsel has submitted that Sec. 306 of the

¶26

Penal Code is not attracted as even as per the prosecution version, question of abetment of suicide is not involved. It is submitted that the petitioners are in custody from 01.11.2013.

¶27

Having regard to the relevant circumstances, I am inclined to think that further detention of the petitioners is not required. Hence I am inclined to grant bail but subject to conditions since grant of bail shall not affect further investigation of the case.

¶28

Resultantly, application is allowed as under:

¶29

1. Petitioners/accused 2 and 3 are granted bail in Crime No. 802 of 2013 of the Vellarada police station and shall be released, if not required to be detained otherwise on their executing bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand only) each with two sureties each for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned magistrate and subject to the following conditions:-

¶30

a) One of the sureties shall be a close relatives of any of the petitioner.

¶31

B.A No. 8222 of 2013

¶32

¶33

b) Petitioners shall report to the investigating officer on every Saturdays between 10:00 a.m. And 12:00 p.m. until filing of the final report.

¶34

c) Petitioners shall report to the investigating officer as and when required for interrogation.

¶35

d) Petitioners shall not intimidate/influence the witnesses.

¶36

e) Petitioner shall not, during the said period get involved in any offence.

¶37

f) It is made clear that in case any of the above condition is violated, it is open to the Investigating Officer to seek cancellation of the bail granted hereby by moving appropriate application before the learned magistrate (until committal if any and thereafter before the learned Principal Sessions Judge concerned) as held in P.K. Shaji V. State of Kerala (AIR 2006

¶38

Supreme Court 100).

¶39

Sd/- THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE

¶40

//true copy//

¶41

P.A. to Judge

¶42

Smv

Sreenivasan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sreenivasan 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kripal Vs the State of Kerala

Lonakutty Vs State of Kerala

Irishi Vs State of Kerala

M.V. Prasanthan, S/O.Krishnan Vs State of Kerala

K.Vijayan Vs State of Kerala

Aboobacker M.K Vs Inspector of Police