High Court Kerala High Court

C.V.Vinayan vs State Represented By Public … on 12 January, 2011

Kerala High Court
C.V.Vinayan vs State Represented By Public … on 12 January, 2011
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl..No. 8761 of 2010()


1. C.V.VINAYAN, 38 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.M.B.PRAJITH

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR

 Dated :12/01/2011

 O R D E R
                          V. RAMKUMAR, J.
            ----------------------------------------------------
               Bail Application No.8761 of 2010
           -----------------------------------------------------
           Dated this the 12th day of January, 2011

                                 ORDER

In this Petition filed under Sec.438 Cr.P.C. the petitioner

who is accused No.1 in Crime No.991 of 2010 of Valappad Police

Station for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323 &

506(i) I.P.C. seeks anticipatory bail.

2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the

learned Public Prosecutor.

3. After evaluating the factors and parameters which are

to be taken into consideration in the light of paragraph 122 of

the verdict dated 2-12-2010 of the Apex Court in Siddharam

Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra and Others

(2010 (4) KLT 930), I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to

the petitioner. Accordingly, a direction is issued to the officer-in-

charge of the police station concerned to release the petitioner

on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with the above

case on his executing a bond for `25,000/- (Rupees twenty five

thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like amount

to the satisfaction of the said officer and subject to the following

conditions:-

Bail Appln.No.8761/2010
-:2:-

1. The petitioner shall report before the

Investigating Officer between 9 a.m. and

11 a.m. on all Wednesdays.

2. The petitioner shall make himself available for

interrogation including custodial interrogation

as and when required by the Investigating

Officer.

3. The petitioner shall not influence or intimidate

the prosecution witnesses nor shall he attempt

to tamper with the evidence for the

prosecution.

4. The petitioner shall not commit any offence

while on bail.

5. The bail granted pursuant to this order shall

be in force till the end of the trial of the case

unless and until it is cancelled by this Court

in accordance with paragraph 103 of the

verdict in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre’s

case (supra).

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.

skj