Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RATHNAKARAN, S/O.MUTHUMANIYANI versus THE STATE OF KERALA REP.BY

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


RATHNAKARAN, S/O.MUTHUMANIYANI v. THE STATE OF KERALA REP.BY - Bail Appl No. 1295 of 2007(R) [2007] RD-KL 4675 (5 March 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl No. 1295 of 2007(R)

1. RATHNAKARAN, S/O.MUTHUMANIYANI,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. THE STATE OF KERALA REP.BY
... Respondent

For Petitioner :SRI.M.THAMBAN

For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR

Dated :05/03/2007

O R D E R

V. RAMKUMAR, J.

B.A.1295/2007

Dated this the 5th day of March, 2007

O R D E R The petitioner who is the second accused in Crime No.176/2006 of Ambalathara Police Station for an offence punishable under Section 55(a) and (g) of the Abkari Act, for allegedly having been found in possession of 1.750 litres of illicit arrack, 75 litres of wash, 20 Kgs. of Jaggery and three and a half Kgs. of Ammonium Sulphate on 24.12.2006, seeks his enlargement on bail. the petitioner was arrested on 1.2.2007.

2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

3. Having regard to the nature of offence and the other circumstances of the case, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, but only from a future date. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail with effect from 12.3.2007, on his executing a bond for Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the J.F.C.M.-I, Hosdurg and subject to the following conditions:

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

2. The petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation as and when required by the police.

3. The petitioner shall not influence or intimidate the prosecution witnesses nor shall he attempt to tamper with the evidence for the prosecution.

4. The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail.

4. If the petitioner commits breach of any of the above conditions, the bail granted to him shall be liable to be cancelled. The application is allowed as above. V.RAMKUMAR,

JUDGE

mrcs

? IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

+Bail Appl No. 1296 of 2007() #1. C.P.HAMEED, S/O.MAHAMOOD,
... Petitioner

2. RHEEM A.P., S/O.MUSTHAFA,

3. HARIF C.P., S/O.ABDUL AZEEZ,

4. NAZAR P.P., S/O.HUAASIN,

Vs

$1. STATE, REP.BY S.H.O. PERAVOOR POLICE
... Respondent

! For Petitioner :SRI.C.K.SREEJITH

For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

*Coram

The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR

% Dated :05/03/2007

: O R D E R

V. RAMKUMAR, J.

B.A.1296/2007

Dated this the 5th date of March, 2007

O R D E R

The petitioners, who are accused Nos. 2, 5, 4 and 1 respectively in Crime No.2/2007 of Peravoor Police Station for an offence punishable under Section 395 IPC for allegedly having been come in a van and snatched the gold chain of the wife of the defacto complainant who was drawing water from a well, seek their enlargement on bail. The occurrence took place on 5.1.2007 at 5.30 p.m. The accused Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 were arrested on 31.1.2007, 3.2.2007, 8.1.2007 and 31.1.2007 respectively.

2. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application submitting inter alia that the petitioners are suspected to be involved in similar offence committed in that area employing the same modus of operandi. The investigating agency had obtained the police custody of the petitioners.

3. Having regard to the nature of offence and the duration of the judicial custody, I am inclined to grant bail to the fourth accused (third petitioner), since he has been in custody from 8.1.2007. Accordingly, the fourth accused (third petitioner) is directed to be released on bail on his executing a bond for Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the J.F.C.M, Kuthuparamba, and subject to the following conditions:

(a). The third petitioner (fourth accused) shall report before the Investigating Officer between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m. on all Wednesdays.

(b). The third petitioner (fourth accused) shall make themselves available for interrogation as and when required by the police till the filing of the final report.

(c). The third petitioner (fourth accused) shall not influence or intimidate the prosecution witnesses nor shall they attempt to tamper with the evidence for the prosecution.

(d). The third petitioner (fourth accused) shall not commit any offence while on bail.

4. If the third petitioner commits breach of any of the above conditions, the bail granted to him shall be liable to be cancelled.

5. The request for bail for accused Nos. 1, 2 and 5 (the petitioners 1, 2 and 4) is rejected. The application is partly allowed as above. V.RAMKUMAR,

JUDGE

mrcs


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.