Allowed

Gokul v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC26 Nov 2015Bail Appl./6617/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order grants anticipatory bail to four accused persons facing allegations of theft and robbery. The Hon'ble Court directed surrender within a week, execution of a bond with sureties, cooperation with investigation, and prohibition of witness intimidation.

What did the court decide?

The petitioners shall surrender within one week, execute a bond of Rs. 25,000/- each with two solvent sureties, cooperate with investigation, and not intimidate witnesses or tamper with evidence.

Gokul Vs the State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2015/5TH AGRAHAYANA, 1937

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 6617 of 2015

¶6

CRIME NO. 1224/2015 OF PALARIVATTOM POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NOS. 2 TO 5:

¶8

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

¶9

1. GOKUL, AGED 22 YEARS, S/O.SASEENDRAN, KUZHUVELI MUGULATH HOUSE, AIYMURI, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶10

2. ANUJITH, AGED 21 YEARS, S/O.SASEENDRAN, KUZHUVELI MUGULATH HOUSE, AIYMURI, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶11

3. MITHUN LAL, AGED 22 YEARS, S/O.LAL, PERIYARVALI QUARTERS, PATTAL, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶12

4. AMAL RAVI, AGED 18 YEARS, S/O.RAVI, OLAPURA HOUSE, AIYMURI, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶13

BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR

¶14

RESPONDENT(S)/STATE & COMPLAINANT:

¶15

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

¶16

2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PALARIVATTOM POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-682 025.

¶17

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.T.Y.LALIZA

¶18

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26-11-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

msv/

¶20

A. HARIPRASAD, J.

¶21

Bail Appl. No.6617 of 2015

¶22

Dated this the 26^th day of November 2015

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

Bail application filed under Sec.438 Cr.P.C.

¶25

Petitioners are accused nos.2 to 5 in Crime

¶26

No.1224 of 2015 of Palarivattom Police station registered for the offence punishable under Sec.395 of the Indian Penal Code. Prosecution case is that, on 10.10.2015 at about 6.30 p.m., the petitioners along with the 1^st accused trespassed into the office of the defacto complainant, committed theft of a lap-top and they forcefully took him to an ATM at Palarivattom and forced him to withdraw Rs.1,12,000/- (Rupees one lakh twelve thousand only). Further, they robed Rs.200/- from his pocket.

¶27

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent of all the allegations. In fact, the 1^st accused along with other persons approached the defacto complainant for securing

¶29

Bail Appl. No.6617 of 2015 2

¶30

job Visa to Italy and finally they realised that they were dupe. The 1^st accused was arrested in the crime and the petitioners apprehends arrest without any legal justification.

¶31

Considering the nature of allegations, I am of the view that following directions will meet the ends of justice.

¶32

The petitioners shall surrender before

¶33

the investigating officer within a period of one week and submit themselves for interrogation.

¶34

In the event of arrest, the petitioners shall be released on their executing a bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the investigating officer.

¶35

The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation as and when directed by him in writing and shall co-

¶36

Bail Appl. No.6617 of 2015 3

¶37

operate with investigation of the case.

¶38

The petitioners shall not intimidate or

¶39

attempt to influence the witnesses, nor shall

¶40

they tamper with the evidence.

¶41

In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the learned Magistrate is empowered to cancel the bail in accordance with law without referring the matter to this Court.

¶42

A. HARIPRASAD JUDGE

¶43

/ True Copy /

¶44

NS/26/11/2015

¶45

P.A. To Judge

Gokul v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gokul v. the 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

Rejeendran @ Biju Vs State of Kerala

Shivashanmugham Vs State of Kerala

Suhara.a Vs State of Kearala

Shameera Santhosh Vs State of Kerala

Bineesh Vs State of Kerala

Noble Mathew Vs State of Kerala