Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SANOOP M. versus STATE OF KERALA

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


SANOOP M. v. STATE OF KERALA - Bail Appl No. 6336 of 2006 [2006] RD-KL 1460 (30 October 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl No. 6336 of 2006()

1. SANOOP M.,
... Petitioner

2. KRISHNAKUMAR @ KUTTAPPAN,

Vs

1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent

For Petitioner :SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU

For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice J.M.JAMES

Dated :30/10/2006

O R D E R

J.M.JAMES, J.

B.A. 6336/2006

DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2006

O R D E R

The petitioners are accused Nos. 1 and 2. They were before this Court for bail, through B.A.No.5980/2006. As per the order dated 10.10.2006, I had dismissed the application, rejecting the prayer for bail. However, the present application is preferred under Section 439 Cr.P.C., on the plea that the Investigation had progressed and the accused are in judicial custody from 26.9.2006 onwards.

2. The offence alleged against the petitioners, accused Nos. 1 and 2, are under Sections 341, 307, 448 and 506(i) IPC read with Section 34 IPC.

3. The prosecution submitted that the petitioners, if released on bail, would be a threat to the persons of the locality, as they are accused in number of criminal cases including 107 Cr.P.C., proceedings. The learned Public Prosecutor also submitted that if the petitioners are released, they will also create problem in the locality and B.A.6336/2006 2 law and order situation may break down.

4. The counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that the petitioners are on bail in other cases and most of the cases, registered against them, are ill founded. Therefore, prayed for bail.

5. Considering the submissions made by either side, I grant bail and release the petitioners from jail, subject to the following conditions:-

(a). Each petitioner shall execute a bond for Rs.25,000/-, with two solvent sureties, each for the like sum, to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirur.

(b). Immediately on release, the petitioners, accused 1 and 2, shall proceed to the S.H.O of Tirur police station, where crime No.713/2006 is being investigated and from there, they shall proceed out of the Sessions Division of Manjeri.

(c). The petitioners shall not enter the Sessions Division of Manjeri (Malappuram District), for a period of B.A.6336/2006 3 six months, except for reporting before the Court below, on appropriate date(s) and also for appearing before the Sub Divisional Magistrate Court, Tirur.

(d). The petitioners shall intimate the address of their residence and also the name of the police station, within which limit they would reside, during the above period of six months.

(e). The petitioners shall not indulge in any activities, which would affect the maintenance of law and order situation in the area, in which they live in, either outside the Sessions Division of Manjeri or after six months within the Sessions Division of Manjeri.

(f). The petitioners shall not leave the State of Kerala, until the trial and disposal of all the cases, pending against them. The application is allowed as above. J.M.JAMES

JUDGE

mrcs B.A.6336/2006 4


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.