Partly allowed

Sojan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC4 Jun 2010Bail Appl./1872/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application for offences involving assault and mischief, the High Court of Kerala denied anticipatory bail. However, viewing section 308 IPC as the sole non-bailable charge, the court allowed surrender and stipulated that section 308 be treated as bailable if arrest occurs.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner must surrender within seven days; if arrested, offence u/s 308 IPC shall be treated as bailable.

Sojan Vs State of Kerala — Cheating and Forgery | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 4TH JUNE 2010 / 14TH JYAISTHA 1932

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 1872 of 2010()

¶6

----------------------------CRMP.601/2010 of D.C. & SESSIONS COURT,KOLLAM (CRIME NO.159/2010 OF EAST KALLADA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT) ....................

¶7

PETITIONER: ----------------------SOJAN, S/O.SOLOMON, AGED 23 YEARS, VIJAYAMANDIRAM, KODUVILA P.O., EAST KALLADA, KOLLAM.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.S.RAJEEV

¶9

RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM (CRIME NO.159/2010 OF EAST KALLADA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT).

¶10

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.M.S.BREEZ

¶11

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶12

K. HEMA, J

¶13

B.A.No.1872 OF 2010

¶14

Dated this the 4^th day of June, 2010

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

This petition is for anticipatory bail.

¶17

The alleged offences are under sections 341, 323, 294(b), 427, 308 r/w 34 IPC. According to prosecution, on 18.2.2010 at about 8 pm petitioner (A2) along with others wrongfully restrained defacto complainant, abused him in obscene language in public, assaulted him and also caused damage to the car in which he was driving and committed various offences.

¶18

Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner is aged 23 years and he is innocent of the allegations made. On 18.2.2010 while a bus was stopped on the road, one of the accused was talking to a bus driver. The defacto complainant who is a jail warden, came that way in a car and got stuck behind the bus and he could not proceed further. Therefore, he got infuriated and there was

¶19

B.A. No.1872/10

¶20

¶21

an unpleasant talk. Due to this incident, a false complaint was made by the jail warden after six days of the incident on 24.2.2010. FIR was registered on 24.2.2020, in respect of incident which allegedly happened on 18.2.2010. It is also pointed out that though sword etc. is allegedly used for the offence by a group of persons, defacto complainant did not sustain any injury at all. But, exaggerated version was given in the FIS. Petitioner obtained job in excise department and in case he is remanded, he will lose his job, it is submitted.

¶22

Learned public prosecutor conceded that there is six days delay in lodging FIR and that no injury was sustained by defacto complainant. He also pointed out that there are some contradictions in the statement given by defacto complainant in the first information statement and subsequent statement and petitioner had not allegedly used any weapon and that defacto complainant was not admitted in hospital.

¶23

On hearing both sides, taking into consideration, the nature of allegations made, I find that this is not a fit case to

¶24

B.A. No.1872/10

¶25

¶26

grant anticipatory bail. But, on consideration of the various facts I find that there is a strong and arguable case for the petitioner regarding involvement of offence u/s 308 IPC, which is the only non-bailable offence in this case. Hence the following order is passed:

¶27

1. Petitioner shall surrender before investigating officer within seven days from today and cooperate with investigation.

¶28

1. In case petitioner is arrested, offence u/s.308 IPC will be treated as not included, for the purpose of bail.

¶29

This petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶30

K. HEMA, JUDGE.

¶31

Sou.

Sojan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sojan v. State of Kerala

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

Ramesh Vs State of Kerala

Aji @ Ajithkumar Vs State of Kerala

P.v.Saru Vs State of Kerala

Rajin P.Raj Vs State of Kerala

Chenathu Musthafa Vs State of Kerala

Gireesh S.R. Vs State of Kerala