Allowed

Praveen K.F. @ Franklin v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC27 May 2016Bail Appl./3595/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application by two accused persons charged with dacoity and kidnapping. The court allowed bail after 68 days of detention, imposing stringent conditions regarding police reporting, appearance restrictions, and sureties.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners released on bail on bond of Rs. 1 Lakh each with two sureties each for Rs. 1 Lakh, subject to stringent police reporting and other conditions.

Praveen K.F. @ Franklin Vs the State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | 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 27TH DAY OF MAY 2016/6TH JYAISHTA, 1938

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 3595 of 2016 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 177/2016 OF BATHERY POLICE STATION, WAYANAD DISTRICT

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS. 7 & 8 :

¶8

1. PRAVEEN K.F. @ FRANKLIN S/O. FRANCIS, AGED 30 YEARS,

¶9

KOZHIPPADAN HOUSE, KANNARA,

¶10

CHEENIKKADAVU, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶11

2. SHANAVAS K.S.,

¶12

S/O. ALI, AGED 34 YEARS, KOLLIKKATHARA HOUSE,

¶13

KANDANKULAM P.O., METHALA VILLAGE,

¶14

KODUNGALLUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶15

BY ADV. SRI.K.RAKESH

¶16

RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT :

¶17

1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 683 031.

¶18

2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE BATHERY POLICE STATION, WAYNAD DISTRICT, PIN - 673 701.

¶19

R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.RAJESH VIJAYAN

¶20

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27-05-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

¶22

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., J.

¶23

B.A. No.3595 of 2016

¶24

Dated this the 27^th day of May, 2016

¶25

O R D E R

¶26

This is an application for regular bail filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners herein are accused Nos. 7 and 8 in Crime No. 177 of 2016 of the Bathery Police Station. The aforesaid crime has been registered under sections 365 and 395 of the IPC.

¶27

The crux of the prosecution allegation is that on 23. 2.2016 at 6 PM, the petitioners along with other accused kidnapped the defacto complainant and his friend and they are alleged to have committed dacoity by taking away the Innova Car of the defact o complainant along with Rs. 35,00,000/- kept in a secret compartment inside the car.

¶28

It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the 2nd petitioner is the driver of the Innova Car

¶29

and the 1st petitioner is alleged to have been present inside the car, when the offence was committed. According to the learned

¶30

B.A. No.3595/2016

¶31

¶32

counsel, the de facto complainant had no satisfactory explanation to offer for the sum of Rs. 35,00,000/- kept in a secret cavity inside the car. It is further urged that there are numerous suspicious circumstances surrounding the case of the de facto complainant. Finally it was submitted that the 1st petitioner was arrested on 20.03.2016 and the 2nd petitioner on 18.03.2016. The petitioners were given in police custody and recovery of money has also been effected. The continued detention of the petitioners will not serve any purpose, according to the learned counsel. The mere fact that the investigating agency was unable to apprehend the main culprits cannot be a reason to deny bail, is the submission of the learned counsel. It is also pointed out that the petitioners herein had earlier moved an application for bail before this Court as B.A. No. 2669/2016 and the same was dismissed as per order dated 29.04.2016.

¶33

The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the grant of bail. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the prime culprits are still at large and it will not be in the interest of prosecution to enlarge the petitioners on bail.

¶34

After having heard the rival submissions and taking note

¶35

B.A. No.3595/2016

¶36

¶37

of the fact that the petitioners had been undergoing incarceration for more than 68 days, I am of the view that the petitioners can now be enlarged on bail subject to stringent conditions.

¶38

In the result, the petition is allowed subject to the following conditions:

¶39

The petitioners shall be released on bail on their executing a bond for Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees One Lakh only) each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned court having jurisdiction. The sureties shall produce documents to establish their identity and solvency. The lower court need not insist on a solvency certificate, but may peruse other vital documents to ascertain whether the sureties are solvent or not.

¶40

The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Mondays and Thursdays between 9 AM and 10 AM, for 4 months or till final report is filed, which ever is earlier.

¶41

The petitioners shall not enter the limits of Bathery Police Station, Wayand district until the conclusion of the trial of this case, except for the purpose of complying with the other conditons in the order.

¶42

The petitioners shall surrender their passport if any forthwith. If they do not have a passport, they shall file an affidavit to that effect before the concerned court.

¶43

The petitioners shall not leave the country without the permission of the concerned Court.

¶44

The petitioners shall not intimidate or attempt to influence the witnesses; nor shall they tamper with

B.A. No.3595/2016

the evidence.

The petitioners shall not commit any offence while they are on bail.

¶49

In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the concerned Court is empowered to cancel the bail in accordance with the law.

¶50

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., (JUDGE)

¶51

vps

Praveen K.F. @ Franklin v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Praveen K.F. @ Franklin 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

Muhammed Khalid Ansar @ Ansar Vs State of Kerala

Thomas K.G Vs Muhammed Nissar

Ratheesh Vs State of Kerala

Moideen Vs the State of Kerala

Manju Vs State of Kerala

P.K.Skaria Vs State of Kerala