Allowed

Shyju @ Pallan Shyju v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC7 Jun 2016Bail Appl./3649/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Sections 365 and 395 IPC relating to kidnapping and robbery, the Court allowed the application after 90 days of custody. The petitioner was released on strict conditions including appearance, passport surrender, and prohibition on leaving the country.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail for Rs. 50,000 with two sureties, subject to conditions of weekly appearance, passport surrender, prohibition on international travel, and non-interference with witnesses.

Shyju @ Pallan Shyju 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

TUESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/17TH JYAISHTA, 1938

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 3649 of 2016 ()

¶6

------------------------------CRIME NO. 177/2016 OF SULTHAN BATTERY POLICE STATION, WAYANAD DISTRICT.

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

SHYJU @ PALLAN SHYJU, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O. VARGHESE, MACHINGAL HOUSE, NELLAYI, PANDALLUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.P.K.SAJEEV, SRI.P.P.HARRIS.

¶10

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶11

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

¶12

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GITHESH. R.

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

rs.

¶15

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., J

¶16

¶17

B.A. No. 3649 of 2016

¶18

- - - - Dated 7^th June, 2016

¶19

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The petitioner is the 1^st accused in Crime No.177 of 2016 of the Sulthan Bathery Police Station. He along with the other accused faces allegation of having committed offences punishable under Sections 365 and 395 of the IPC.

¶22

The prosecution allegation is that on 23.2.2016 at about 6.30 pm, the petitioner along with the other accused kidnapped the de facto complainant and took away an Innova car along with Rs.35,00,000/- which was found inside a secret compartment inside the car.

¶23

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that he was arrested on 10.3.2016 and was remanded to judicial custody. It is contended that this Court has granted regular bail to accused No.13 as per the order in B.A.No.3067 of 2016 and the accused Nos. 7 and 8 were granted bail as per order in B.A.No.3595 of 2016 dated

¶24

B.A. No. 3649 of 2016

¶25

-2-

¶26

27.5.2016. Finally, it is submitted by the learned counsel that 90 days have elapsed and the petitioner is entitled to statutory bail as the investigating agency has not filed the final report.

¶27

The learned public prosecutor submits that the petitioner is a person with criminal antecedents and he is involved in numerous crimes. However it is submitted that the final report has not been laid till date. Stringent conditions be imposed is the submission of the learned counsel.

¶28

Having regard to the facts and circumstances, the nature of offence, and the period of incarceration I am of the view that the petitioner can now be enlarged on bail on stringent conditions

¶29

In the result this bail application is allowed, subject to the following conditions;

¶30

1)The petitioner shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for Rs.50,000/(Rupees twenty five thousand only) with

¶31

B.A. No. 3649 of 2016

¶32

-3-

¶33

two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate 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.

¶34

2)The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Saturdays between 9 AM and 10 AM, for 3 months or till final report is filed, whichever is earlier.

¶35

3)The petitioner shall surrender his passport before the learned Magistrate within five days from the date of his release.If he does not have a passport , he shall file an affidavit to that effect before the concerned court.

¶36

4)The petitioner shall not leave the country without the permission of the concerned Magistrate. The petitioner

¶37

5)The petitioner shall not intimidate or attempt to influence the witnesses; nor shall he tamper with the evidence.

¶38

6)The petitioner shall not commit any offence while he is on bail.

¶39

In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the

¶40

B.A. No. 3649 of 2016

¶41

-4-

¶42

learned Magistrate shall be empowered to cancel the bail in

¶43

accordance with the law.

¶44

Sd/-

¶45

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V.,

¶46

JUDGE

¶47

kp/-7.6.16

Shyju @ Pallan Shyju v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shyju @ Pallan Shyju 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

K.P.Madhu Vs v.S.Nawas

Babu Vs State of Kerala

Lalu Vs State of Kerala

Padmanabhan Vs the Calicut Co-Operative Urban Bank Ltd.

Deepan Babu Vs State of Kerala

P.P.Shamsu Vs State of Kerala