Allowed

Praveen Kumar v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC4 Jan 2013Bail Appl./96/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed a bail application filed by Praveen Kumar, an accused in under Section 332 IPC and the Kerala Police Act, finding continued custody unnecessary as investigation was largely complete and there was no apprehension of absconding.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted bail on bond of Rs.15,000/ with two sureties for the like sum, subject to conditions regarding reporting and non-interference.

Praveen 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. 96 of 2013 ()

¶6

CRIME NO.1476/2012 OF KASARGOD POLICE STATION, KASARGOD DISTRICT CRMP.3/2013 of C.J.M.,KASARAGOD

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

PRAVEEN KUMAR, S/O.RAMAKRISHNAN, AGED 28 YEARS, SRI.VIGNESH, MAJAL, MOGRAL PUTHUR VILLAGE, KASARGOD TALUK.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE SRI.THOMAS T.VARGHESE SMT.ACHU SUBHA ABRAHAM

¶10

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: -----------------------

¶11

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTING THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KASARGOD.

¶12

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.S.SREEJITH

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04-01-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

VPV

P.BHAVADASAN, J.

B.A. No.96 of 2013

Dated this the 4^th day of January, 2013

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.1476/2012 of Kasaragod Police Station for having committed the offences punishable under Section 332 f IPC and 118(a) of the Kerala Police Act.

¶20

Allegation against the petitioner is that on 26.12.2012 he was found in a drunken state and when he created nuisance, people detained him and informed the police. The defacto complainant and other officers came to the spot and conducted breath test. The petitioner was found to be under the influence of alcohol. He was asked to get into the police jeep. Then the petitioner assaulted the defacto complainant by beating on his left ear and right hand thereby obstructing him from performing his official duty.

¶21

The petitioner would say that he is totally innocent and has been falsely implicated with ulterior motive.

¶22

After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor and after having perused the records, the claim of the petitioner that he is innocent cannot be countenanced. Even going by the allegations

¶23

B.A.No.96/2013 :2:

¶24

in the FIR the petitioner is found to have beaten the Sub Inspector of Police. But considering the fact that the petitioner has been in custody from 26.12.2012 onwards and since a good part of investigation must have been completed by now and as no apprehension has been expressed by the investigating agency that if released on bail the petitioner is likely to abscond, it is felt that the continued custody of the petitioner is unnecessary. In the result, the application is allowed and the petitioner is granted bail subject to the following conditions:

¶25

(1) The petitioner shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

¶26

(2) The court shall ensure the identity of the sureties and also the veracity of the tax receipts produced by them before granting bail to the petitioner.

¶27

(3) The petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer as and when notice is received by him.

¶28

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

¶29

(5) If any of the condition is violated by the petitioner, the bail granted shall stand cancelled and the learned Magistrate concerned, on being satisfied of the said fact, may take such proceedings as are available to him in law.

¶30

P.BHAVADASAN, Judge.

¶31

okb.

Praveen Kumar v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Praveen 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

Statutes considered

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

Abdul Razak Vs State of Kerala

Gafoor K.S. Vs State of Kerala

V.G Ajith Kumar Vs State of Kerala