Allowed

Shinu Abraham v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC3 Jan 2013Bail Appl./9359/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Kerala HC allowed an anticipatory bail application for an accused charged under various IPC sections related to affray and offenses causing hurt, directing surrender and standard bail conditions.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; Bail granted conditioned on surrender before I/O within 14 days, execution of bond with sureties, and compliance with non-tampering conditions.

Shinu Abraham 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 3RD DAY OF JANUARY 2013/13TH POUSHA 1934

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 9359 of 2012 ()

¶6

CRIME NO.1513/2012 OF THEVARA POLICE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

SHINU ABRAHAM,AGED 27 YEARS, S/O.K.E.ABRAHAM,KANDATHINKARA HOUSE, PUNNAKKAL.P.O., THIRUVAMBADI VIA, KOZHIKODE-673 603.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.SANTHARAM.P SMT.REKHA ARAVIND

¶10

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶11

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM,KOCHI-31.

¶12

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.LALIZA.T.Y.

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03-01-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

sts

P.BHAVADASAN, J.

B.A. No.9359 of 2012

Dated this the 3^rd day of January, 2013

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Petitioner is the second accused in Crime No. 1513/2012 of Thevara Police Station, who is alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Sections 323, 143, 144, 147, 148, 149 and 308 of IPC.

¶20

The incident which gave rise to the case is said to have occurred on 20.11.2012. According to the petitioner, the incident has not occurred as alleged. The petitioner would say that, in fact he was attacked by the de facto complainant for which he suffered injuries and is undergoing treatment in the hospital. It is pointed out by him that the allegations are false and are put up for the purpose of the case. It is further pointed out that the other accused have been released on bail.

¶21

After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor and after having perused the wound certificate, it is felt that this is a fit case where the extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. needs to be exercised in favour of the petitioner. The petition is allowed as follows:

¶22

The petitioner shall surrender before the Investigating

¶23

B.A.No.9359/2012 :2:

¶24

Officer on or before 14.1.2013, who after interrogation shall produce the petitioner before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's court concerned, which court on application being moved by the petitioner shall release him on bail on his executing a bond for Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the JFCM concerned.

¶25

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

¶26

The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation as and when required by him.

¶27

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

¶28

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

¶29

P.BHAVADASAN,

¶30

Judge.

¶31

okb.

Shinu Abraham v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shinu Abraham 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

Philips Thomas Vs State of Kerala

T.B.Majeed Vs State

Ajimon Vs State of Kerala

Mrs.Kiruba John Vs State of Kerala

Kora Vs State of Kerala

Unnikrishnan Vs Sub Inspector of Police