BAIL APPL No. 71 of 2007 · Kerala High Court
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
This application is allowed as above
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 22. Even though the learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application, in view of the orders passed in similar applications, I aminclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner3. Accordingly, a direction is issued to the officer-in-charge of the police station concerned to release the petitioner…
- Para 55. The petitioner shall surrender before the Magistrateconcerned and seek regular bail in the meanwhile. If the petitioner commits breach of any of the above conditions, the bail granted to him shall be liable to be cancelled. This application is allowed as above.V.Ramkumar, Judge.ess 10/1
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH JANUARY 2007 / 20TH PAUSHA 1928 Bail Appl..No. 71 of 2007() ---------------------------Crime No.653/06 of Ottapalam police Station : PETITIONER/ACCUSED: ------------------------------------ JOSHY, AGED 37 YEARS, S/O.ACHUTHAN VYDYAR, CHOTTATHODY, KOTHAYUR, VANIYAMKULAM P.O., OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.PEEYUS A.KOTTAM RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT: ------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, OTTAPALAM POLICE STATION, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKUALM. (INVESTIGATING OFFICER IN CRIME NO.653/06 OF OTTAPALAM POLICE STATION.) BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI. JAI GEORGE THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/01/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.Ramkumar, J.========================B.A.No. 71 of 2007========================Dated this the 10th day of January, 2007.ORDERPetitioner, who is the accused in Crime No.653 of 2006 of Ottapalam Police Station for an offence punishable under Sections 52Aand 68A of the Copy Right Act, 1957 in respect of three alleged pirated cassettes seized on 9.12.2006, seeks anticipatory bail.
Even though the learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application, in view of the orders passed in similar applications, I aminclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner3. Accordingly, a direction is issued to the officer-in-charge of the police station concerned to release the petitioner on bail for aperiod of one month in the event of his arrest in connection with the above case on his executing a bond for Rs. 10,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction to the said officer and subject to the following conditions: 1. The petitioner shall report before the InvestigatingOfficer between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m. on all Wednesdays.2. The petitioner shall make himself available for Bail A.No.71/07-:2:-interrogation as and when required by the InvestigatingOfficer.
The petitioner shall not influence or intimidate the prosecution witnesses nor shall he attempt to tamper with the evidence for the prosecution.
The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail.
Operative part
The petitioner shall surrender before the Magistrateconcerned and seek regular bail in the meanwhile. If the petitioner commits breach of any of the above conditions, the bail granted to him shall be liable to be cancelled. This application is allowed as above.V.Ramkumar, Judge.ess 10/1
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: This application is allowed as above
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Copy Right Act, 1957.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Kerala High Court, on 10 Jan 2007. The bench was V RAMKUMAR.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.