Allowed

Shaji v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC6 Jun 2014Bail Appl./2811/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Ernakulam granted bail to the second accused, Shaji, apprehending arrest in a criminal trial for offences under Sections 452, 323, 324, and 326 IPC. Bail was granted subject to conditions including surrender date, reporting to the investigating officer, and executing a bond.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted bail on executing a bond for Rs.20,000 with two sureties, subject to conditions to report to the investigating officer and not influence witnesses.

Shaji Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JUNE 2014/16TH JYAISHTA, 1936

¶5

BAIL APPL..NO. 2811 OF 2014 () -------------------------------

¶6

CRIME NO.239/2014 OF CHERTHALA POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ ACCUSED NO.2 :

¶8

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

¶9

SHAJI, AGED 34 YEARS, S/O NARAYANAN BABU, BRAHMANAVELI, WARD NO.6, KADAKKARAPPALLY PANCHAYATH, CHERTHALA, ALAPUZHA.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.B.PRAMOD

¶11

RESPONDENT(S) :

¶12

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

¶13

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

¶14

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. LALIZA

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06-06-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

¶17

THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J.

¶18

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

¶19

Bail Appl. No.2811 of 2014

¶20

Dated this the 6^th day of June 2014

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

Petitioner is the 2^nd accused in Crime No.239 of 2014 of the Cherthala Police station for the offences punishable under Secs.452, 323, 324 and 326 read with Sec.34 of the Indian Penal Code, apprehends arrest and has filed the application.

¶23

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the application. It is submitted that on 31.01.2014 at about 10 p.m., the petitioner and the 1^st accused attacked the defacto complainant at his friend's house.

¶24

Learned counsel submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are not true.

¶25

On hearing both sides and going through the CD file it appears that it is the 1^st accused who is said to have attacked the defacto complainant with iron pipe and caused fracture. That weapon is recovered. The petitioner is not reported to be involved in any other case. In the

¶26

Bail Appl. No.2811 of 2014 2

¶27

circumstances, I am inclined to think that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required. Hence, I am inclined to grant relief to the petitioner but subject to conditions.

¶28

The application is allowed as under.

¶29

Petitioner shall surrender before the officer investigating Crime No.239 of 2014 of the

¶30

Cherthala Police station on 16.06.2014 at 10.00 am for interrogation.

¶31

In case interrogation of the petitioner is not completed that day, it is open to the investigating officer to direct presence of the petitioner on any other day/days and time which the petitioner shall comply.

¶32

In case arrest of the petitioner is recorded he shall be produced before the jurisdictional magistrate the same day.

¶33

On such production learned magistrate shall

¶34

Bail Appl. No.2811 of 2014 3

¶35

release the petitioner on bail (if not required to be detained otherwise) on his executing bond for Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned magistrate and subject to the following conditions:

¶36

a) One of the sureties shall be a close relative of the petitioner.

¶37

b) Petitioner shall report to the investigating officer on every alternate Saturday between 10.00 am and 12.00 pm for a period of two months or until filing of the final report whichever is earlier .

¶38

c) Petitioner shall report to the investigating officer as and when required for interrogation.

¶39

d) Petitioner shall not get involved any offence during the period of this bail.

¶40

e) Petitioner shall not influence or intimidate the witnesses.

¶41

Bail Appl. No.2811 of 2014

¶42

¶43

f) In case any of condition nos.(b) to (e) is violated, it is open to the investigating officer to file application before the learned magistrate for cancellation of the bail granted hereby, as held in

¶44

P.K. Shaji V. State of Kerala (AIR 2006 SC

¶45

100).

¶46

Sd/- THOMAS P. JOSEPH JUDGE

¶47

/ True Copy /

¶48

¶49

P.A. To Judge

Shaji v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaji 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.v.Rajan Vs the State of Kerala

Aumkarnadh Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Poulose Vs State of Kerala

Sandeep Vs State of Kerala

Rejin Vs State of Kerala

Suresh Kumar @ Wilson Vs State of Kerala