Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SURESH KUMAR versus STATE OF KERALA

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


SURESH KUMAR v. STATE OF KERALA - Bail Appl No. 1072 of 2007 [2007] RD-KL 4564 (1 March 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl No. 1072 of 2007()

1. SURESH KUMAR
... Petitioner

Vs

1. STATE OF KERALA
... Respondent

For Petitioner :SRI.G.P.SHINOD

For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR

Dated :01/03/2007

O R D E R

V. RAMKUMAR, J.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Bail Application No. 1072 of 2007 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Dated, this the Ist day of March 2007

ORDER

Petitioners six in number seek anticipatory bail on the allegation that Nedumangad police are at their heels in connection with Crime No. 2 of 2007 registered for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 452, 294(b), 323, 324 and 427 read with Sec. 149 I.P.C., seek anticipatory bail.

2. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the 6th petitioner is not an accused in the case. If so, the apprehension entertained by the 6th petitioner for arrest and harassment is unfounded and recording the said submission of the Public Prosecutor the 6th petitioner is denied anticipatory bail.

3. In the case of the rest of the petitioners, since accused Nos. 2, 3 and 11 have already been granted anticipatory bail, I see no reason why the petitioners should be treated differently. Accordingly, a direction is issued to the officer-in-charge of the police station concerned to release petitioners 1 to 5 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/- Bail A.No.1072 of 2007 -:2:- (Rupees ten thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction to the said officer and subject to the following conditions:

1. Petitioners 1 to 5 shall report before the Investigating Officer between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m. on all Wednesdays.

2. Petitioners 1 to 5 shall make themselves available for interrogation as and when required by the Investigating Officer.

3. Petitioners 1 to 5 shall not influence or intimidate the prosecution witnesses nor shall they attempt to tamper with the evidence for the prosecution.

4. Petitioners 1 to 5 shall not commit any offence while on bail.

5. Petitioners 1 to 5 shall surrender before the Magistrate concerned and seek regular bail in the meanwhile. If the petitioners 1 to 5 commit breach of any of the above conditions, the bail granted to them shall be liable to be cancelled. This application is allowed as above. V.RAMKUMAR,

JUDGE.

ani. Bail A.No.1072 of 2007 -:3:- V. RAMKUMAR,

(JUDGE)

ani.


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.