Kerala High Court
Bail Appl./9324/2012 of BINSAD Vs STATE OF KERALA on 31 December 2012
COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN MONDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2012/10TH POUSHA 1934 Bail Appl..No. 9324 of 2012 ( A ) ------------------------------------------ [CRIME NO.471/2012 OF THE CHEVAYUR POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT] .............
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN
MONDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2012/10TH POUSHA 1934
Bail Appl..No. 9324 of 2012 (A)
------------------------------------------ [CRIME NO.471/2012 OF THE CHEVAYUR POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT]
.............
APPLICANT/7TH ACCUSED:
---------------------------------------- BINSAD, AGED 23 YEARS, S/O.ABDUL RAZAK, KUTTICHIRA HOUSE, PANIPRA, P.O.KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
BY SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU, SENIOR ADVOCATE, ADVS. SRI.VIPIN NARAYAN, SMT.M.A.SHEEBA.
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
-------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.
BY ADDL. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTON SRI. K.I. ABDUL RASHEED.
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31-12-2012,ALONG WITH B.A. NO.9457/2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Prv.
P.BHAVADASAN, J.
---------------------------------------------------- BA Nos.9324 & 9457 of 2012
---------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 31[st] day of December 2012
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
Order
These applications are filed by the first and theseventh accused in Crime No.471/12 of Chevayur PoliceStation for having committed the offences punishable underSs.302, 120(b), 364 and 201 r/w S.34 IPC. The first accused has been in custody from 1.10.2012 onwards and the seventhaccused from 3.10.2012 onwards. The learned counsel for thepetitioners pointed out that their continued custody isunnecessary. He, therefore, seeks bail.
2. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application and pointed out that the final report has alreadybeen laid on 28.12.2012.
3. Fortunately, this court is relieved of the burden ofgoing into the facts of the case in detail for the simple reasonthat the said exercise has been undertaken by this court ontwo earlier occasions, while disposing of applications filed bythe other accused in the case. The final report has already BA Nos.9324 & 9457/12
been laid. The only apprehension expressed by theInvestigating Agency is that the petitioners, if released on bail,may try to influence the witnesses. That can be taken care ofby imposing stringent conditions. The continued custody of thepetitioners is unnecessary. The applications are accordinglyallowed subject to the following conditions :
1. The petitioners shall be released on bail, on each of themexecuting a bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty FiveThousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the likesum each to the satisfaction of the JFCM-I, Kozhikode.executing a bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty FiveThousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the likesum each to the satisfaction of the JFCM-I, Kozhikode.
2. The learned Magistrate shall ensure the identity of thesureties and the veracity of the tax receipts produced by thesureties, before granting bail to the petitioners.sureties and the veracity of the tax receipts produced by thesureties, before granting bail to the petitioners.
3. The petitioners shall not tamper or attempt to tamper withthe evidence and influence or try to influence the witnesses.the evidence and influence or try to influence the witnesses.
4. The petitioners shall not enter the Kozhikode District limituntil further orders. until further orders.
5. If any of the conditions is violated, the bail granted shallstand cancelled and the learned Magistrate concerned onstand cancelled and the learned Magistrate concerned on being satisfied of the said fact, may take such action as available to him in law.
P.Bhavadasan, Judge
sta