Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

YESODHARAN, S/O.KRISHNAN versus STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


YESODHARAN, S/O.KRISHNAN v. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY - Bail Appl No. 7254 of 2006 [2006] RD-KL 3146 (11 December 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl No. 7254 of 2006()

1. YESODHARAN, S/O.KRISHNAN,
... Petitioner

2. SUNIL, S/O.YESODHARAN,

3. RAJU, S/O.KARUNAKARAN,

Vs

1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent

For Petitioner :SRI.C.RAJENDRAN

For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR

Dated :11/12/2006

O R D E R

V. RAMKUMAR, J.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 7254 OF 2006
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2006

O R D E R

Petitioners, three in number, seek anticipatory bail on the allegation that the Kollam East Police are attempting to arrest and harass the petitioners in connection with Crime No.1195/06 of the said Police Station for offences punishable under sections 408 and 420 read with section 34 IPC.

2. Learned Public Prosecutor on instructions submitted that while petitioners 1 and 3 are respectively accused 2 and 1, second petitioner is not an accused in the above crime.

3. After hearing both sides and after considering the rival contentions of the parties, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to petitioners 1 and 3, but on certain conditions. Accordingly, a direction is issued to the officer-in-charge of the police station concerned to release petitioners 1 and 3 on bail for a period of one month in the event of their arrest in connection with the above case on each of them executing a bond for Rs.10,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the said officer and subject to the following conditions:

1. Petitioners 1 and 3 shall report before the Investigating Officer between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m. on all Wednesdays. B.A.NO.7254/06 Page numbers

2. Petitioners 1 and 3 shall make themselves available for interrogation as and when required by the Investigating Officer.

3. Petitioners 1 and 3 shall not influence or intimidate the prosecution witnesses nor shall they attempt to tamper with the evidence for the prosecution.

4. Petitioners 1 and 3 shall not commit any offence while on bail.

5. Petitioners 1 and 3 shall surrender before the Magistrate concerned and seek regular bail in the meanwhile.

6. The 3rd petitioner, viz; the first accused shall surrender before the Investigating Officer on any day between 13.12.2006 and 16.12.2006 for the purpose of custodial interrogation and recovery, if any. If petitioners 1 and 3 commit breach of any of the above conditions, the bail granted to them shall be liable to be cancelled. Since the 2nd petitioner is not an accused in the above crime, the apprehension of arrest and harassment entertained by him is unfounded. Hence anticipatory bail to the second petitioner is refused. This application is allowed in part as above.

V.RAMKUMAR,JUDGE.

dsn


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.