Allowed

Biju v. Public Prosecutor

Kerala HC15 Sept 2020Bail Appl./4560/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

KHC granted anticipatory bail to a petitioner accused of offenses under the Arms Act and Indian Explosives Act. The court noted the lack of corroborative evidence beyond co-accused confessions and imposed conditions to cooperate with investigation and avoid tampering.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail allowed; directed to surrender within two weeks and execute a bond for Rs.50,000 with two sureties.

Biju Vs Public Prosecutor — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020 / 24TH BHADRA, 1942

¶5

Bail Appl..No.4560 OF 2020

¶6

CRIME NO.0773/2020 OF Santhanpara Police Station , Idukki

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

BIJU AGED 46 YEARS #95, MANALEL HOUSE, KOMBODINJAL, PANIKKANKUDY KONNATHADY, IDUKKI, PIN - 685 571. 685571

¶9

BY ADV. SHRI.MANEESH T.T.

¶10

RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT:

¶11

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM – 682031.

¶12

2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER SANTHANPARA POLICE STATION IDUKKI DISTRICT ,PIN 685619

¶13

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶14

OTHER PRESENT:

¶15

PP - SRI. SANTHOSH PETER

¶16

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15.09.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

BA 4560/2020

O R D E R

Dated this the 15th day of September 2020

¶21

This is an application seeking anticipatory bail filed under Section 438 Cr.PC.

¶22

The applicant is accused No.4 in Crime No.773/2020 of Santhanpara Police Station for having allegedly committed offences punishable under Sections 3 and 25 (1B)(a) of the Arms Act and Section 5 of the Indian Explosives Act, 1884.

¶23

The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 12.7.2020 at about 2 a.m., the first accused was apprehended by the Police for being in possession of an unlicensed rifle and some gun powder & allied materials in violation of the provisions of the Arms Act as well as the Explosives Act. The first accused had allegedly purchased the rifle without any licence or permit from the second accused, in consequence of which second accused too was implicated. After the arrest of accused 1 and 2, the third accused was

¶24

¶25

BA 4560/2020

¶26

also implicated as being the manufacturer of the gun and he too was arrested. The basis of implicating the applicant, according to him, is that his motorcycle bearing Regn.No.KL-07 AZ-2385 was being used by the first accused, that he being the friend of the first accused had let him use his motorcycle and that is the only connecting factor between the first accused and the applicant, in consequence of which he too has been implicated as the person in possession of the gun. He seeks pre-arrest bail.

¶27

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicant and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶28

The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that confession statements were given by the other co-accused, to the effect that the applicant is the real owner of the gun, and hence, he cannot be released on anticipatory bail.

¶29

It is to be considered that apart from the confession statements, there is no other

¶30

¶31

BA 4560/2020

¶32

corroborative material available, at this point in time, to implicate the applicant. The applicant has no other criminal antecedents of a similar nature also. Hence, I find that he is entitled to be released on anticipatory bail on certain conditions.

¶33

In the result, the bail application is allowed and the applicant is directed to surrender before the investigating officer within two weeks. After interrogation, in the event of his being arrested, he shall be released on bail on the execution of a bond for Rs.50,000/(Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties, each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the investigating officer, and on the following further conditions:

¶34

(i) He shall appear before the

¶35

investigating officer as and when called for and co-operate with the investigation.

¶36

(ii) He shall not tamper with evidence or intimidate or influence the witnesses.

¶37

BA 4560/2020

¶38

¶39

(iii) He shall not get involved in any similar offence during the currency of the bail. In case of breach of any of the above bail conditions, the prosecution is at liberty to approach the jurisdictional court for cancellation of the bail.

¶40

Sd/ASHOK MENON JUDGE

¶41

Biju v. Public Prosecutor

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Biju v. Public Prosecutor

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

Nahas Vs State of Kerala

Augustine v.a., Vs State of Kerala

Renjini T.V Vs State of Kerala

Fasal .E. Vs the State of Kerala

Bindu S., Vs State of Kerala

S.Satheesan Vs State of Kerala