Allowed

V.G Ajith Kumar v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC4 Jan 2013Bail Appl./9344/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed a bail application under its extraordinary jurisdiction. Having accepted that the principal complainant surrendered grievances after settlement, the court directed the petitioner to surrender and obtain bail subject to standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted subject to surrender within one week, a bond of Rs. 15,000 with two equal sureties, and undertakings not to tamper with evidence or influence witnesses.

V.G Ajith Kumar 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

FRIDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF JANUARY 2013/14TH POUSHA 1934

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 9344 of 2012 ()

¶6

CRIME NO.725/2011 OF GANDHI NAGAR POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

V.G AJITH KUMAR, AGED 37 YEARS S/O.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR, HARIKRIPA HOUSE, PERUMBAIKODE VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.S.RAJEEV

¶10

SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN

¶11

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT/STATE:

¶12

1. STATE OF KERALA

¶13

REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶14

ERNAKULAM-682031 (CRIME NO.725/2011 OF GANDHI NAGAR POLICE

¶15

STATION, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT)

¶16

2. STATION HOUSE OFFICER,

¶17

GANDHI NAGAR POLICE STATION

¶18

KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686 008 (CRIME NO.725/2011 OF GANDHI NAGAR

¶19

POLICE STATION,KOTTAYAM DISTRICT)

¶20

3. M.K.SANTHOSH

¶21

S/O.MOHANAN, KURATHIYATTU HOUSE, S.H.MOUNT P.O.

¶22

NATTASSERY, KOTTAYAM-682028.

¶23

BY ADV. SRI.A.C.DEVY

¶24

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI P.P. SREEJITH

¶25

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04-012013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶26

SKV

¶27

P.BHAVADASAN, J

¶28

-----------------------------------------

¶29

B.A No.9344 of 2012

¶30

Dated this the 4^th day of January, 2013

¶31

O R D E R

¶32

The petitioner is the accused in Crime No. 725/2011 of Gandhi Nagar Police Station for having committed offence punishable under Sections 324, 326, 341 and 308 r/w Section 34 of IPC.

¶33

It is unnecessary to go into the facts of the case for the simple reason that the petitioner had impleaded the defacto complainant. The defacto complainant has entered appearance through his counsel. From Annexure 1 it is seen that the entire matter has been settled between the parties and the defacto complainant has no further grievance in the matter.

¶34

Eventhough an earlier application filed by the petitioner for the very same relief was dismissed, in the light of the submission of the parties the matter has been subsequently settled. Since there is no grievance exists for the defacto complainant it is felt that a fresh look at the issue is necessary.

¶35

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case it is felt that this is a fit case where extraordinary jurisdiction of

¶36

B.A No.9344 of 2012 : 2:

¶37

this Court needs to be exercised in favour of the petitioner. The petition is allowed as follows:

¶38

i) The petitioner shall surrender before the Investigating Officer on or before 15.1.2013, who after interrogation shall produce him before the JFCM concerned and on application for bail moved by the petitioner, the learned Magistrate shall release the petitioner on bail on his executing a 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 said Court.

¶39

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

¶40

Iii) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer concerned for interrogation as and when required by him until further orders.

¶41

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

¶42

v) If any of the condition 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.

¶43

P.BHAVADASAN Judge

¶44

V.G Ajith Kumar v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.G Ajith Kumar 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mrs.Kiruba John Vs State of Kerala

Kora Vs State of Kerala

Unnikrishnan Vs Sub Inspector of Police

Praveen Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Razak Vs State of Kerala

Gafoor K.S. Vs State of Kerala