Allowed

Aji v. State

Kerala HC18 Nov 2016Bail Appl./7511/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court allowed an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. filed by three accused persons. The court ruled that an order of anticipatory bail was justified despite the prosecution's opposition and directed the release of the petitioners upon execution of bonds. Specific conditions for reporting and conduct were imposed.

What did the court decide?

Release of petitioners on bail on execution of bonds of Rupees fifty thousand each with two solvent sureties subject to reporting and other conditions.

Aji Vs State — Anticipatory Bail | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/27TH KARTHIKA, 1938

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 7511 of 2016 ()

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER IN Bail Appl. 6977/2016 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA CRIME NO. 1093/2016 OF PALODE POLICE STATION , THIRUVANANDAPURAM

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NO 9,6 AND 8:

¶8

AJI,

¶9

AGED 30, S/O AYYAPPAN, 4 CENT COLONY,

¶10

SOORYAKANTI, THENNUR P.O, PALODE,

¶11

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 563.

¶12

SANTHOSH,

¶13

AGED 35, S/O VELAYUDAN NAIR, KUNNIL VEEDU,

¶14

SOORYAKANTI, THENNUR P.O, PALODE,

¶15

THIRUVANANTHAPRUAM 695 563.

¶16

BAIJU,

¶17

AGED 34, S/O GOPALAN, KIZHAKKUMKARA VEEDU, NANKUMMOODU, SOORYAKANTI, THENNUR P.O, PALODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 563.

¶18

BY ADV. SRI.A.S.SHAMMY RAJ

¶19

RESPONDENT(S):

¶20

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

¶21

THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PALODE POLICE STATION,

¶22

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶23

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. RAMESH CHAND

¶24

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, J.

¶26

Bail Application No.7511 of 2016

¶27

Dated this the 18^th day of November, 2016

¶28

ORDER

¶29

The petitioners are the accused in Crime No. 1093 of 2016 of Palode Police Station registered for the offence under Sections 323, 324, 506 (i) and 308 IPC.

¶30

The petitioners have filed this application under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶31

Heard.

¶32

The learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the application. It has been submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioners did not inflict any injury on the injured. The petitioners are also not involved in any other offence, submitted by the learned Public

BA 7511 of 2016

: 2 :

Prosecutor.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, including the overt act alleged against the petitioners, I am of the view that an order under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in favour of the petitioners will be justified in this case.

¶37

In the result, this application stands allowed and the respondents are directed to release the petitioners on bail, in the event of their arrest in connection with Crime No. 1093 of 2016 of Palode Police Station on condition of each of the petitioners executing a bond for 50,000/(Rupees fifty thousand only) each, with two solvent sureties each, each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the 2nd respondent before whom the petitioners shall surrender within ten days from today, if not arrested in the meantime, and subject to the following conditions: -

¶38

(i) The petitioners shall report before the Investigating Officer on every Monday between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m. for three months and thereafter, as and when required by the Investigating Officer for interrogation.

¶39

BA 7511 of 2016

¶40

: 3 :

¶41

(ii) The petitioners shall not get involved in any offence during the pendency of the above case.

¶42

(iii) The petitioners shall not intimidate or influence the witnesses or in any way tamper with the investigation.

¶43

Sd/-B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE.

¶44

Ani/

¶45

/true copy/

¶46

P.S. to Judge

Aji v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aji 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

Kunjaisha Vs State of Kerala

Sharafudeen Vs the State of Kerala

Renjithlal Vs M/S.Muthoot Leasing & Finance Ltd.

Vijayan Vs State of Kerala

C.K.Unnikrishnan Vs State of Kerala

Raghavendra Prasad Vs the Deputy Superintendent of Police