Allowed

Suneer.K, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC12 Apr 2024Bail Appl./1029/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Sole accused in a KAAPA offence for allegedly violating a one-year restraint order barring him from the Kannur Range sought bail. Noting roughly 90 days of custody, expiry of the restraint period on 20.04.2024 and substantially completed investigation, the court granted bail with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail on executing Rs.50,000 bond with two solvent sureties, subject to six conditions including weekly reporting to the Investigating Officer.

Suneer.K, Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 23RD CHAITHRA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 1029 OF 2024

¶5

CRIME NO.42/2024 OF Thalassery Police Station, Kannur
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CMP NO.183 OF 2024 OF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ,THALASSERY
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶6

SUNEER.K,
AGED 34 YEARS
S/O. MOOSA, KOLATHAYI HOUSE, CUSTOMS ROAD,
THALASSERY. P.O, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670101

¶7

BY ADVS.
CIBI THOMAS
ANSIA K.A.
AISHWARYA SHIVAKUMAR

¶8

RESPONDENTS/STATE:

¶9

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031

¶10

2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, THALASSERY POLICE STATION, THALASSERY P.O.,KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670102

¶11

OTHER PRESENT:

¶12

SR PP SRI C S HRITHWIK

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
12.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

B.A. No1029 of 2024

¶15

¶16

Dated this the 12^th day of April, 2024

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

The application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the sole accused in Crime No.42/2024 of the Thalassery Police Station, Kannur, registered against him for allegedly committing the offences under Section 15(4) r/w 19 of the Kerala Anti-social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007. The petitioner was arrested on 12.01.2024.

¶19

The crux of the prosecution case is that; the petitioner was restrained from entering the jurisdiction of the Kannur Range, for a period of one year from 20.04.2023, as per the order bearing No.A3/4120/2023/KR, dated 06.04.2023, by the DIG Kannur Range, as per the provisions of the KAAPA Act. However, the petitioner violated the said order and

¶20

B.A. No1029 of 2024

¶21

¶22

entered the Thalassery Sea Bridge on 12.01.2024, at

¶23

18.40 hours. Thus, the accused has committed the above offences.

¶24

Heard; Sri. Cibi Thomas, learned counsel

¶25

appearing for the petitioner and Sri. C.S. Hrithwik, the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶26

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusations levelled against him. The petitioner has not violated the order as alleged by the prosecution. The petitioner is ready to abide by stringent condition that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, the petitioner may be released on bail.

¶27

The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. He submitted that the petitioner is a history sheeter. The petitioner is involved in 23 other crimes. It was in the above circumstances that the DIG Kannur

¶28

B.A. No1029 of 2024

¶29

¶30

Range had passed a restraint order restraining the petitioner from entering the jurisdiction of the Kannur Range for a period of one year from 20.04.2023. It is violating the said order, the petitioner entered the jurisdiction of the Kannur range. Thus, he has committed the above offence. If the petitioner is released on bail, there is every likelihood of him committing similar offences. Hence, the application may be dismissed.

¶31

On an evaluation of the materials placed on record, it can be gathered that the DIG Kannur Rage had, by order dated 06.04.2023, restrained the petitioner from entering the jurisdiction of Kannur Range for a period of one year from 20.04.2023. It is alleged that the petitioner violated the said order and entered the Kannur range on 12.01.2024. The fact remains that the petitioner has been in judicial custody from 12.01.2024, which is three months.

¶32

B.A. No1029 of 2024

¶33

¶34

On an anxious consideration of the facts, the rival submissions made across the Bar, and the materials placed on record, especially on considering the fact that the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last 90 days, that the period fixed in the restraint order gets over on 20.04.2024, and that the investigation in the case is practically complete, I am of the definite view that the petitioner’s further detention is not necessary. Hence, I am inclined to allow the bail application.

¶35

In the result, the application is allowed, by directing the petitioner to be released on bail on him executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum, to the satisfaction of the court having jurisdiction, which shall be subject to the following conditions:

¶36

(i) The petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer on every Saturday till the

¶37

B.A. No1029 of 2024

¶38

¶39

finalisation of the proceedings in Crime No.42/2024.

¶40

(ii) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly

¶41

make any inducement, threat or procure to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any Police Officer or tamper with the evidence in any manner, whatsoever;

¶42

(iii) The petitioner shall not commit any offence

¶43

while he is on bail;

¶44

(iv) The petitioner shall surrender his passport, if

¶45

any, before the court below at the time of execution of the bond. If he has no passport, he shall file an affidavit

¶46

to the effect before the court below on the date of execution of the bond;

¶47

(v) In case of violation of any of the conditions

¶48

B.A. No1029 of 2024

¶49

¶50

mentioned above, the jurisdictional court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation of bail, if any filed, and pass orders on the same, in

¶51

accordance with law.

¶52

(vi) Applications for deletion/modification of the bail

¶53

conditions shall be moved and entertained by the court

below.

Sd/-

mtk/12.04.24

C.S.DIAS, JUDGE

Suneer.K, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suneer.K, v. 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

Vishnu.P Vs State of Kerala

Ashique Mansoor Vs State of Kerala

E.P. Aswin, Vs State of Kerala

Soosan Garvasis, Vs State of Kerala

Radhika Balachandran, Vs State of Kerala

Rajesh, Vs State of Kerala