Allowed

Shijil C. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC29 Apr 2016Bail Appl./2351/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court granted regular bail to accused Nos.1 and 2, alleging involvement in hurling an explosive device at a police officer's house. Bail was subject to strict conditions including appearance before the I.O. and restrictions on entering the jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted to petitioners on conditions including execution of bonds with two sureties each, appearance before I.O. every Monday and Thursday, and prohibition from entering the limits of Payyannur P

Shijil C. Vs State of Kerala — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF APRIL 2016/9TH VAISAKHA, 1938

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 2351 of 2016 ()

¶6

CRIME NO.109/2016 OF PAYYANNUR POLICE STATION, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NOS 1 & 2:

¶8

1. SHIJIL C. S/O.LAKSHMANAN, AGED 26 YEARS, KANDANKALI, PAYYANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶9

2. NANDAKUMAR T.C.V, S/O.CHANDRAN, AGED 32 YEARS, ANNUR, P.O ANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.M.SASINDRAN SRI.A.ARUNKUMAR

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT & STATE:

¶12

1.STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTE BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682031.

¶13

2.THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, (CRIME NO 109 OF 2016 OF PAYYANNUR POLICE STATION) KANNUR DISTRICT - 670 001.

¶14

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.RASHEED

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29-04-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

mbr/

¶17

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., J.

¶18

B. A. No. 2351 of 2016

¶19

Dated this the 29^th day of April, 2016

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

This is an application for regular bail. The petitioners herein are the accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.109/2016 of Payyannur Police Station. They are alleged to have committed offence punishable under Sections 307 read with Section 34 of IPC , Sections 3 and 5 of Explosives Substance Act and Section 4 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act.

¶22

The prosecution allegation is that, on 16.01.2016 at 1.40 hrs, the petitioners along with others had hurled an explosive device at the house of the Circle Inspector of Police. Though the said device exploded , it did result in causing any injury. Prosecution alleges that it was due to political enmity, that the aforesaid act was committed by the petitioners.

¶23

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶24

It is submitted by the learned counsel that the petitioners herein were arrested on 12.02.2016 and since then they are in custody. It is further submitted that in so far as the accused Nos.3 and 4 is concerned, this Court as per order dated

¶25

B. A. No. 2351 of 2016

¶26

¶27

11.03.2016 in B.A. No.1827/2016 had granted regular bail. The learned Public Prosecutor does not seriously oppose the prayer of the petitioners but submitted that stringent conditions may be imposed. After having heard the rival submissions and taking note of the period of detention undergone and the fact that accused Nos.3 and 4 have already been enlarged on bail, I am of the view that bail can be granted to the petitioners subject to stringent conditions:

¶28

(i)Each of the petitioners shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.60,000/- (Rupees sixty thousand only) with two sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court.

¶29

(ii)They shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Mondays and Thursdays between 9 a.m. and 10 a.m. for a period of three months from the date of their release.

¶30

(iii)Except for the compliance of the above condition or for appearance in a Court of law where their appearance is mandatorily required, they shall not enter the limits of Payyannur Police Station for a period of six months from the date of their release. In case of any other extraordinary

¶31

B. A. No. 2351 of 2016

¶32

¶33

reason , they shall obtain the permission of the concerned court .

¶34

(iv)They shall not threaten, coerce or intimidate the defacto complainant and the witnesses nor shall they interfere in the process of investigation.

¶35

(v)They shall not get involved in any other identical offences.

¶36

In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the concerned court shall be empowered to cancel the bail in accordance with the law.

¶37

Sd/-

¶38

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., JUDGE.

¶39

// True copy //

¶40

P.A. To Judge

¶41

Shijil C. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shijil C. 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

Joshy Joseph Vs the State of Kerala

Nikhil @ Arun Vs State of Kerala

Dr. a.Jehangeer Vs State of Kerala

Peter T.V Vs Sub Inspector of Police, Meenangadi

Ismail Vs State of Kerala

Sharafudeen Vs State of Kerala