Kerala High Court
Bail Appl./9683/2012 of ANSAR 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. 9683 of 2012 () ------------------------------ (CRIME NO. 592/2012 OF NATTUKAL POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD DISTRICT) PETITIONER/ACCUSED :
BP
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. 9683 of 2012 ()
------------------------------
(CRIME NO. 592/2012 OF NATTUKAL POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD DISTRICT)
PETITIONER/ACCUSED :-------------------------------- ANSAR, AGED 23 YEARS, S/O.KUTTUPPA, THITTUMMAL HOUSE, KATTUKULAM P.O. ALANALLOOR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SMT.S.JASMINE
RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT :
--------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE NATTUKAL POLICE STATION REP. THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. LALIZA T.Y.
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31-12-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
P. BHAVADASAN, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A. No. 9683 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
The petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.
592 of 2012 of Nattukal Police Station, who is alleged tohave committed offences punishable under Section 511 ofSection 377 I.P.C. He is in custody from 16.11.2012onwards.
2. The petitioner points out that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated due to extraneous reasons.At any rate, it is pointed out that the petitioner has been incustody from 16.11.2012 onwards and his continuedcustody is unnecessary.
3. Learned Public Prosecutor pointed out thatinvestigation is not yet complete.
4. The allegation against the petitioner is that when the victim was returning from school along with hisfriend, the petitioner, who was standing on the way, sentaway the friend of the victim and dragged the victim to the B.A.9683/2012.
nearby bush and tried to commit the act which would attract the offence under the I.P.C. However, the petitioner has been in custody from 16.11.2012 onwards and a goodpart of the investigation must have been completed by now,and as no apprehension is expressed by the investigatingagency that if released on bail, the petitioner is likely toabscond, his continued custody appears to be unnecessary.
Therefore, this application is allowed on thefollowing conditions:
i) Petitioner shall be released on bail on hisexecuting a bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/- (RupeesTwenty Thousand only) with two solvent suretiesfor the like sum each to the satisfaction of JFCM,Mannarcaud.
ii) The learned Magistrate may ensure the identityof the sureties and also the veracity of the taxreceipts that are sought to be produced at the timeof executing the bond.
iii) Petitioner shall report before the InvestigatingOfficer on every Wednesday between 9 a.m. and 10a.m. till final report is laid.
B.A.9683/2012.
(iv) Petitioner shall not tamper or attempt totamper with the evidence or influence or try toinfluence the witnesses.
v) If any of the condition is violated, bail granted tothe petitioner shall stand cancelled, and the JFCMconcerned may take such steps as are available tohim in law.
sb.
P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE