Partly allowed

Subin v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC20 Mar 2014Bail Appl./1918/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under IPC sections 452, 341, 323, 294(b), 506(i) and 427 r/w 34, the court rejected anticipatory bail for the 1st accused due to the gravity of the offence. Bail for the 2nd accused was granted subject to surrender, police interrogation, bond with sureties, and specific conditions. The trial court was directed to apply these conditions when assessing bail.

What did the court decide?

Application of 1st accused rejected. Application of 2nd allowed with bond, sureties, police attendance, passport surrender, and non-deportation conditions directed to Magistrate.

Subin Vs State of Kerala — Anticipatory Bail | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH 2014/29TH PHALGUNA, 1935

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 1918 of 2014 (D)

¶6

CRIME NO. 87/2014 OF PERUVANTHANAM POLICE STATION , IDUKKI

¶7

ACCUSED(S)/ACCUSED 1 & 2:

¶8

1. SUBIN AGED 25 YEARS S/O.VASU, OLIKKA PURAYIDAM, VADAKEMALA IDUKKI DISTRICT.

¶9

2. MAJU, S/O.BABU, AGED 25 YEARS VADAKEPARAMBIL, VADAKEMALA, IDUKKI DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN SRI.K.S.PRAVEEN

¶11

COMPLAINANT(S)/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶12

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM REPRESENTING SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PERUVANTHANAM.

¶13

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. RAJESH VIJAYAN

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20-03-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

JJJ

¶16

N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, J.

¶17

B.A. No. 1918 of 2014 (D)

¶18

Dated this the 20^th day of March, 2014

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

Petitioners are accused in Crime No.87/2014 of Peruvanthanam Police Station, Idukki District. Offences alleged are under sections 452, 341, 323, 294(b), 506(i) and 427 r/w 34 of IPC. Apprehending arrest, this petition is filed for anticipatory bail.

¶21

It is alleged that when the defacto complainant and her family members were in the residential house, the accused persons trespassed into the verandah of the house and threatened them and also abused them using obscene words. When the complainant and her mother asked them to go out and not to abuse them, A1 caught hold of the tuft of her hair and thereafter he pushed her down. When a near relative reached there both accused persons caught

¶22

B.A. No. 1918/2014 (D)

¶23

-2-

¶24

hold of the neck of that person and beat him. It was also stated that the accused persons destroyed the parapet wall of the house causing a loss of Rs.5,000/-. There is allegation that the petitioners are accused in another grave offence. The complainant's brother's husband is a witness to that case. Because of that animosity the accused persons did the offending act. There is very serious allegation against the 1^st accused, the learned Public Prosecutor submits.

¶25

It appears that the accused persons wanted to use their muscle power to terrorise the complainant and others evidently to prevent the witness from deposing against the accused persons. Considering the gravity of the offence, I am not inclined to grant bail to the 1st petitioner. His

¶26

application is rejected.

¶27

B.A. No. 1918/2014 (D)

¶28

-3-

¶29

The 2^nd petitioner shall surrender before the

¶30

Investigating Officer within ten days from today. After interrogation the 2^nd petitioner shall be produced before the learned Magistrate. When applied for bail by the 2^nd petitioner, the learned Magistrate will, considering the nature of the case, grant bail to the petitioner but on the following conditions:

¶31

a. The petitioner shall execute a bond for Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate. If in case the Magistrate has any doubt about the genuineness or correctness of the tax receipts produced by the sureties, the learned Magistrate can insist for production of the attested photo copies of the original title deeds of the sureties.

¶32

B.A. No. 1918/2014 (D)

¶33

-4-

¶34

b. The petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by the Investigating Officer and shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays between 9.30 AM to 11.30 AM until further orders.

¶35

c. The petitioner shall surrender his original passport before the learned jurisdictional Magistrate. If he is not having any valid passport, he should file an affidavit regarding the same before the Magistrate.

¶36

d. The petitioner will also file an affidavit that he will abide by all the conditions as mentioned above and that he will not commit any offence similar to the offence involved in this case and will not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to

¶37

B.A. No. 1918/2014 (D)

¶38

-5-

¶39

any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶40

e. The petitioner shall not leave India without the prior permission of the learned Magistrate.

¶41

f. The learned Magistrate will also ensure the identity of the sureties by insisting production of electoral photo identity cards/Driving licence etc.

¶42

g. The petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.2,500/- (Rupees Two thousand Five hundred only) before the trial court.

Sd/-

N.K. BALAKRISHNAN,

JUDGE

//True Copy//

P.A. to Judge

jjj

Subin v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subin 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

C.P.Navas Vs the S.I of Police

Abhilash Vs State of Kerala

Sobin Vs State of Kerala

T.D Shajan Vs Sub Inspector of Police

Sadique Vs State of Kerala

Krishnan Vs Sheeba