✦ Kerala High Court · 20 Jun 2011

Judgment · High Court · 2011

Case at a glance

Outcome

Allowed

This application is allowed as above

Provisions considered

Judgment

V. RAMKUMAR, J.----------------------------------------------------Bail Appln. No.4492 of 2011 ------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 20th day of June, 2011.ORDERIn this Petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C., thepetitioners, who are accused Nos.1 & 2 in Crime No.138 of2011 of Kutttippuram Police Station for offences punishableunder Sections 344, 376(2)(g), 377 & 307 read with Section 34I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(xii) of the SC & ST (Prevention ofAtrocities) Act, seek their enlargement on bail. The petitionerswere arrested on 16/04/2011.2.I heard the learned counsel for the petitioners andthe learned Public Prosecutor.3.Having regard to the nature of the offences, theduration of judicial custody undergone by the petitioners, thepresent stage of investigation of the case and the othercircumstances of the case etc., I am inclined to grant bail tothe petitioners. Accordingly, the petitioners are directed to bereleased on bail with effect from 29/06/2011 on each of themexecuting a bond for `15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only)with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to thesatisfaction of the Magistrate concerned and subject to thefollowing conditions:- Bail Appln.No.4492/2011 : 2 :1.The petitioners shall report before theInvestigating Officer between 9 a.m. and11 a.m. on all Wednesdays till the filing ofthe final report.2.The petitioners shall surrender theirpassport, if any, before the Magistratebefore executing the bail bond. In casethey do not hold a passport they shall filean affidavit to that effect.3.The petitioners shall not travel beyond thelimits of Malappuram District without theprior written permission of the Magistrateconcerned.4. The petitioners shall not directly orindirectly make any inducement, threat orpromise to any person who is acquaintedwith the facts of the case so as todissuade him or her from disclosing anyinformation to the court or to the police.5. The petitioners shall not establish anycontact with any of the witnesses oraccused in the case. 6.The petitioners shall not influence orintimidate the prosecution witnesses norshall they attempt to tamper with theevidence for the prosecution.7.The petitioners shall not commit anyoffence while on bail. Bail Appln.No.4492/2011 : 3 :8. The petitioners shall notify their place ofresidence before executing the bail bond.If the petitioners commit breach of any of the aboveconditions, the bail granted to them shall be liable to becancelled. This application is allowed as above. Dated this the 20th day of June, 2011. V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE.skj

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?

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 439.

Which court decided this case, and when?

Kerala High Court, on 20 Jun 2011. The bench was V RAMKUMAR.

Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case

No treatment data yet for this judgment in the Courts & Cases corpus.

Absence of data is not a statement about the judgment’s standing — the corpus covers only judgments we index and link with cited evidence.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Kerala High Court or eCourts case status (search case no. BAIL APPL No. 4492 of 2011). ← Search more judgments