BAIL APPL No. 1524 of 2007 · Kerala High Court
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 14 Mar 2007
- Bench
- V RAMKUMAR
Outcome
Allowed
In the result, this application is allowed in part granting bail toaccused Nos
Provisions considered
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 s. 439
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 s. 34
- Arms Act, 1959 s. 27
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. The 5th accused is a habitual offender and a known goondaagainst whom 21 crimes have been registered for various offences which include grave offences. Accused Nos.2 and 3 are alleged to bethe associates of the first accused. Having regard to the antecedents of the…
Judgment
V. RAMKUMAR, J.````````````````````````````````````````````````````B.A. No. 1524 OF 2007 A````````````````````````````````````````````````````Dated this the 14th day of March, 2007
O R D E RIn this Petition filed under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C. the petitioners, who are accused Nos.1 to 3 in Crime No.37/07 of Contonment PoliceStation, Trivandrum for offences punishable under Secs.326 and 427read with section 34 I.P.C. and section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, seek their enlargement on bail. The occurrence took place at about 8.30p.m. on 13.2.2007 and the petitioners were arrested on 26.2.2007.
Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application.
The case of the prosecution is that at about 8.30 p.m. on13.2.07 the accused persons boarded the stage carriage bus driven by the de facto complainant from the stop in front of the University Collegeand assaulted the de facto complainant(driver) with a sword inflicting acut injury on his right hand. While so, accused Nos.2 and 3 struck the windscreen of the bus with iron rods and shattered the same.
Operative part
The 5th accused is a habitual offender and a known goondaagainst whom 21 crimes have been registered for various offences which include grave offences. Accused Nos.2 and 3 are alleged to bethe associates of the first accused. Having regard to the antecedents of the first accused and the daring manner in which the offence which has committed, I am not inclined to grant bail to the first accused. But with regard to accused Nos.2 and 3, in as much as no other crime has been BA.1524/07: 2 :shown against them, I am inclined to grant bail to them with effect from afuture date. Accordingly, accused Nos.2 and 3 are directed to be released on bail with effect from 26.3.2007 on each of them executing abond 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.-III,Thiruvananthapuram and subject to the following conditions: a.The 2nd and 3rd petitioners shall report before the Investigating Officer between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m. on all Wednesdays.b. The 2nd and 3rd petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation as and when required by the police till the filing of the final report.c. The 2nd and 3rd petitioners shall not influence or intimidate the prosecution witnesses nor shall they attempt to tamper with the evidence for theprosecution.d.The 2nd and 3rd petitioners shall not commit any offence while on bail. If the petitioners commit breach of any of the above conditions, the bail granted to them shall be liable to be cancelled. In the result, this application is allowed in part granting bail to accused Nos.2 and 3 but refusing bail to the first accused. (V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE)aks
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: In the result, this application is allowed in part granting bail toaccused Nos
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 439; Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 34; Arms Act, 1959 — s. 27.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Kerala High Court, on 14 Mar 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.