BAIL APPL No. 7457 of 2006 · Kerala High Court
Case at a glance
Outcome
Bail granted
7457/06Page numberspetitioner is released on bail, he will definitely influence andintimidate the prosecution witness and that may affect thesmooth investigation of the case
Provisions considered
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 143, 147, 149, 294(b), 323, 324, 341, 395, 427, 452
- Arms Act, 1959 s. 27
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. The case of the prosecution is that accused 1 to 20along with 24 unidentified persons had formed themselves intoan unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons like sword, cudgel, stones, etc. and had made their forcible entry into thehouse of the de facto complainant at…
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR MONDAY, THE 18TH DECEMBER 2006 / 27TH AGRAHAYANA 1928 Bail Appl..No. 7457 of 2006() ----------------------------- CMP.8054/2006 of J.M.F.C., PARAVOORCRIME NO.138/06 OF PARIPPALLY POLICE STATION. .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED: ---------------------------- MAHEEN, S/O.MANI, MAHEEN VILASOM, PARA JUNCTION, CHIRAKKARA IDAVATTOM CHERRI, KALLUVATHUKKAL VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.P.A.NOOR MUHAMMED SRI.C.K.PRASAD RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PARIPPALLY POLICE STATION, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI JAI GEORGE THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/12/2006, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.RAMKUMAR, J.-------------------------------------B.A.No. 7457 OF 2006-----------------------------------------------------------DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2006
O R D E R Petitioner who is the 4th accused in Crime No.138/06 of Parippally Police Station for offences punishable under sections143, 147, 452, 341, 323, 324, 294(b), 427 and 395 read withsection 149 IPC and section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, seeks hisenlargement on bail. The occurrence took place in the night of3.12.2006.
Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application.
Operative part
The case of the prosecution is that accused 1 to 20along with 24 unidentified persons had formed themselves intoan unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons like sword, cudgel, stones, etc. and had made their forcible entry into thehouse of the de facto complainant at 10 PM on 12.4.2006 andhad caused mischief by taking away gold, cash and other articles. This is a case where dacoity was committed on the sheer sourceof strength. The investigation of the case is still in thepreliminary stage. If at this stage of the investigation, the BA.7457/06Page numberspetitioner is released on bail, he will definitely influence andintimidate the prosecution witness and that may affect thesmooth investigation of the case. So, I am not inclined to grantbail to the petitioner. This petition is accordingly dismissed.V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGEdsn
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: 7457/06Page numberspetitioner is released on bail, he will definitely influence andintimidate the prosecution witness and that may affect thesmooth investigation of the case
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 143, 147, 149, 294(b), 323, 324, 341, 395, 427, 452; Arms Act, 1959 — s. 27.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Kerala High Court, on 18 Dec 2006. 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.