Allowed

T J Thomas v. State

Kerala HC22 Jan 2016Bail Appl./349/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment grants anticipatory bail to a sole accused charged under Section 379 IPC and Section 20 of the Kerala Protection of River Banks Act for transporting river sand. The court imposes conditions regarding appearance for interrogation, bond execution, and non-interference with witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted subject to appearance before IO within ten days, executing a bond of Rs. 40,000 with two sureties, and not threatening complainants or witnesses.

T J Thomas Vs State — Narcotics (NDPS) | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY 2016/2ND MAGHA, 1937

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 349 of 2016 ()

¶6

-----------------------------CRIME NO. 882/2015 OF IRIKKUR POLICE STATION, KANNUR

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED :

¶8

T. J. THOMAS, S/O. JOSEPH, AGED 47 YEARS, THADATHIL HOUSE, PADIYOOR AMSOM, POVAM DESOM, IRITTY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.SATHEESHAN ALAKKADAN

¶10

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT/STATE :

¶11

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 680150.

¶12

2. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, IRIKKUR POLICE STATION, KANNUR DISTRICT - 670001.

¶13

R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. T.Y. LALIZA

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22-01-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

SUNIL THOMAS, J.

=================

B.A.No.349 of 2016

¶19

=================

¶20

Dated this the 22^nd day of January, 2016

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.882 of 2015 of Irikkur Police Station for offences punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 20 of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act.

¶23

The allegation of the prosecution is that on 19.09.2015 at about 5a.m., accused was found transporting river sand in a pickup van. He ran away from the spot and seeks anticipatory bail. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶24

Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner is not involved in any other crime of similar nature. Substantial part of the investigation seems to be over with the search and seizure. What remains is confirmation of the identity of the petitioner. In the circumstance, I do not feel that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is essential. Hence, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner subject to the following conditions.

¶25

B.A.349/16

¶26

¶27

(i) Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer within ten days from today and shall undergo interrogation. If he is proposed to be arrested, he shall be released on bail on he executing a bond for a sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand only) with two sureties for the like sum each.

¶28

Investigating Officer as and when required for interrogation.

¶29

(iii) He shall not threaten, coerce or intimidate the de facto complainant or his witnesses.

¶30

The anticipatory bail application is allowed as above.

¶31

Sd/- SUNIL THOMAS Judge

¶32

Sbna/22/1/16

¶33

True Copy

¶34

P A to Judge

T J Thomas v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T J Thomas v. State

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

Akhilnath Vs State of Kerala

Aneesh Vs State of Kerala

Yahiya Vs State of Kerala

A.Salam Vs the State of Kerala

Sujith Vs State of Kerala

Abdulrahman Vs State of Kerala