Dismissed

Jayakumar v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC14 Jun 2010Bail Appl./2862/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of an anticipatory bail application filed by Jayakumar in a case involving assault and grievous hurt. The court held that the serious nature of allegations and need for custodial interrogation precluded bail and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer without delay and cooperate with investigation.

Jayakumar Vs State of Kerala — Maintenance and Alimony | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 14TH JUNE 2010 / 24TH JYAISTHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 2862 of 2010() ----------------------------(CRIME NO.766/2009 OF VARKALA POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM) PETITIONER/IST ACCUSED -----------------------------------------JAYAKUMAR, S/O.KRISHNAN, KINATTUVILAYIL VEEDU, THANNIMMOODU, CHERUNNIYOOR VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.V.ANIL (K/1480/98)

¶2

RESPONDENT(S): STATE -------------------STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM (CRIME NO.766 OF 2009 OF VARKALA POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM). PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ

¶3

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶4

K.HEMA, J

¶5

B.A No.2862 OF 2010

¶6

Dated this the 14^th day of June 2010

¶7

ORDER

¶8

This petition is for anticipatory bail.

¶9

The alleged offences are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 324 and 326 IPC. According to prosecution, first accused along with two others intercepted a motor cycle in which de facto complainant was traveling and all the accused, six in number, assaulted him using weapons and inflicted a fracture to de facto complainant.

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that co-accused are granted bail. Petitioner is seeking to settle the matter with de facto complainant.

¶11

This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that there are serious allegations against petitioner. He has inflicted a fracture by using a hitting block. Recovery of the weapon is not effected and petitioner is required for interrogation.

¶12

On hearing both sides, considering the serious nature of the allegations made and taking into account the nature of investigation required, need for custodial interrogation and

¶13

B.A No.2862 OF 2010

¶14

¶15

recovery to be effected, I am satisfied that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Petitioner is bound to surrender before the Investigating Officer without delay and co-operate with investigation.

¶16

Petition is dismissed.

¶17

K.HEMA JUDGE

¶18

vdv

Jayakumar v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jayakumar 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Samdeep Varghese Vs State of Kerala and Others

Jayakumar Vs State of Kerala

Mohanan & Another Vs Sub Inspector of Police, Kanjikuzhy

Balakrishna Bhat Vs the S.H.O. Varkala Police Station

Samad Vs State

Joy @ Vinod Vs State of Kerala