Allowed

Prasobh.K.v. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC9 Jan 2013Bail Appl./9883/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed the bail application of the petitioner accused in a criminal case under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 324, and 149 I.P.C., granting extraordinary jurisdiction subject to specific reporting and non-influencing conditions before the JFCM.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted subject to reporting to Investigating Officer and ensuring non-interference with witnesses or evidence.

Prasobh.K.v. 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

WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF JANUARY 2013/19TH POUSHA 1934

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 9883 of 2012 ()

¶6

(CRIME NO. 745/2012 OF THE KOYILANDY POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT)

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED :

¶8

PRASOBH.K.V., AGED 24 YEARS S/O. K.V.GOPALAN, KARTHIKA HOUSE ARIKKULAM P.O., KOYILANDY KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.P.R.SREEJITH SRI.M.PROMODH KUMAR

¶10

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT :

¶11

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.

¶12

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. LALIZA T.Y.

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09-01-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

¶15

P. BHAVADASAN, J.

¶16

- - - - B.A. No. 9883 of 2012

¶17

- - - - Dated this the 9^th day of January, 2013.

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The petitioner is one of the accused in Crime No. 745 of 2012 of Koyilandy Police Station, who is alleged to have committed offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 324 and 149 I.P.C. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that subsequently Section 308 I.P.C. was deliberately incorporated to see that the petitioners and other accused are denied bail.

¶20

The allegation against the petitioner and others is that on 10.12.2012 at 7.45 p.m. there was a clash between two political groups in which the defacto complainant and others were injured. The petitioner would say that he had no role to play in the incident and he has been implicated in the crime with ulterior motive. It is also pointed out that no overt act is attributed to him.

¶21

¶22

B.A.9883/2012.

¶23

Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application and pointed out that the allegation against the petitioner is that he had restrained the defacto complainant.

¶24

After having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor and after perusing the CD, it is felt that this is a fit case where the extraordinary jurisdiction needs to be exercised in favour of the petitioner.

¶25

Therefore, this application is allowed on the following conditions:

¶26

i) Petitioner shall surrender before the

¶27

Investigating Officer on or before 17.01.2013, who after interrogation shall produce him before the JFCM court concerned, which court, on application for bail being moved by the petitioner, shall release him on bail on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the said court.

¶28

B.A.9883/2012.

¶29

¶30

ii) The learned Magistrate may ensure the identity of the sureties and the veracity of the tax receipts produced by the sureties for the purpose of executing the bond.

¶31

iii) Petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer as and when required by him.

¶32

iv) Petitioner shall not tamper or attempt to tamper with the evidence or influence or try to influence the witnesses.

¶33

v) If any condition is violated, bail granted to the petitioner shall stand cancelled, and the JFCM concerned may take such steps as are available to him in law.

¶34

P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE

¶35

sb.

Prasobh.K.v. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prasobh.K.v. 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

Navas Vs State of Kerala

Gireesh Vs State of Kerala

Vinosh Vs State of Kerala

Prince Vs State of Kerala

Sachidanandan Vs State of Kerala

Fadhil Ahammed Vs State of Kerala