Allowed

Aji Philip and Others v. Sub Inspector of Police and Another

Kerala HC4 Mar 2008Bail Appl./817/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted anticipatory bail to petitioners accused in hit-and-run linked theft cases under Sections 379 and 452 IPC, subject to bond conditions, appearance dates, and interrogation timelines. One petitioner's bail application was dismissed as arrest was deemed unnecessary.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted subject to surrender, bond execution, and specific interrogation availability dates. One petitioner's application dismissed.

Aji Philip and Others Vs Sub Inspector of Police and Another — Anticipatory Bail | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 4TH MARCH 2008 / 14TH PHALGUNA 1929

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 817 of 2008()

¶6

¶7

F.I.R. 120/08 OF ADOOR POLICE STATION

¶8

PETITIONERS

¶9

¶10

AJI PHILIP, AGED 32, S/O. T.D.PHILIPOSE, THONDALIL GRACE VILLA, EZHAMKULAM, NEDUMON P.O., ARUKKALICAL EAST.

¶11

K.B.SHAJI, AGED 33, S/O. BASHEER, KADATHUSSERI HOUSE, ARUKKALICAL WEST, VADAKKEDATHUCAVU P.O., ADOOR.

¶12

ANISH RAJ, AGED 33, S/O. DAMODARAN, ANDOOR VILAYIL, PARAKODE WEST, ADOOR.

¶13

ALEXANDER THOMAS, S/O. P.C.THOMAS, THENGUMBILAYIL, THUVAYOOR NORTH, MANAKKALA P.O., ADOOR.

¶14

BY ADV. SRI.JOHNSON MANAYANI

¶15

RESPONDENTS:

¶16

¶17

THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ADOOR POLICE STATION, ADOOR.

¶18

THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS STATE PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶19

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. JAI GEORGE

¶20

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/03/2008, ALONG WITH BA NO. 907 OF 2008 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

R. BASANT, J.

¶22

- - - - B.A.Nos. 817 & 907 of 2008

¶23

- - - - Dated this the 4th day of March, 2008

¶24

O R D E R

¶25

These applications are for anticipatory bail. The petitioners

¶26

are accused in two crimes, both registered at the Adoor Police Station. They face allegations in the two crimes, of the nature of a case and counter case, registered at that police station. While the petitioner in B.A. 907 of 2008 faces allegations, inter alia, under Section 379 r/w. 34 I.P.C., the petitioners in B.A. 817 of 2008 face allegations in a crime registered for offences punishable, inter alia, under Section 452 r/w. 34 I.P.C.

¶27

The petitioners are employees/agents of two Cable

¶28

Network operators. It is evident that there is bitter competition between the two to capture the market. Both allege snapping cable wires on account of a lorry which passed by. One operator alleges that the optic cables belonging to him which were broken were stealthily removed by the other. The other alleges that when he was attending to his work consequent to the damage caused to the cable wire, the

¶29

¶30

B.A.Nos. 817 & 907 of 2008

¶31

petitioners in the other case had entered the office and assaulted them. Allegations and counter allegations are raised. Investigation is in progress. The petitioners apprehend imminent arrest.

¶32

The learned counsel for the petitioners in both the cases submit that they are innocent. The boot lies actually on the other leg, contends both of them. They pray that directions under section 438 Cr.P.C. may be issued to save the respective petitioners from the undeserved trauma of arrest and detention.

¶33

Notice was given to the learned Prosecutor. The learned Prosecutor first of all submits that the third petitioner in B.A. 817 of 2008 is not required to be arrested at all. Though he was shown as accused in Crime No.120 of 2008, investigation revealed his innocence and he has been deleted from the array of accused. The petition in so far as the said petitioner is concerned can be dismissed, it is submitted.

¶34

The learned Prosecutor submits that in the nature of the allegations and counter allegations, the State does not want to oppose the application of the accused in either case. Subject to appropriate conditions, the petitioners in both the cases can be granted anticipatory bail, submits the learned Prosecutor.

¶35

¶36

B.A.Nos. 817 & 907 of 2008

¶37

The case diaries have been placed before me. I have perused the same. In the absence of opposition, it is not necessary for me to advert to facts in any greater detail in this order. Suffice it to say that I am satisfied that anticipatory bail can be granted to all the petitioners, except the third petitioner in B.A. 817 of 2008, whose application is dismissed holding that he is not required to be arrested as apprehended by him.

¶38

In the result:

¶39

(1) These applications are allowed.

¶40

(2) The following directions are issued under Section 438

¶41

Cr.P.C.

¶42

(a) The petitioners shall surrender before the learned Magistrate on 11.3.2008 at 11 a.m. The learned Magistrate shall release the petitioners on regular bail on condition that they execute bonds for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate.

¶43

(b) The petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation before the Investigating Officer between 10 a.m. and 3

¶44

B.A.Nos. 817 & 907 of 2008

¶45

¶46

p.m. on 12.3.08 and 13.3.2008. During this period, the investigators shall be at liberty to interrogate the petitioners in custody and take all necessary steps in connection with the investigation. Thereafter they shall appear before the Investigating Officer between 10 and 12 noon on all Mondays for a period of one month and subsequently as and when directed by the Investigating Officer in writing to do so.

¶47

(c) If the petitioners do not appear before the learned Magistrate as directed in clause (1) above, these directions shall lapse on 11.3.2008 and the police shall be at liberty thereafter to arrest the petitioners and deal with them in accordance with law.

¶48

(d) If the petitioners were arrested prior to their surrender on 11.3.2008 as directed in clause (1) above, they shall be released on bail on their executing bonds for Rs.25,000/- each without any surety undertaking to appear before the learned Magistrate on 11.3.2008.

¶49

(R. BASANT) Judge

¶50

Aji Philip and Others v. Sub Inspector of Police and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aji Philip and Others v. Sub Inspector of Police and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Joseph @ Josy Vs State of Kerala

Jayaprakash Vs State of Kerala

Vijayan Vs State of Kerala

Vasudevan Nair Vs State of Kerala

Joby and Others Vs State of Kerala

Joseph Vs State of Kerala