Allowed

Dinoop Jacob v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC23 Nov 2011Bail Appl./8684/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed an application for anticipatory bail filed by five accused persons in a criminal case involving alleged assault and unlawful assembly, imposing standard conditions to ensure cooperation with the investigation and prevent absconding.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail allowed on execution of a bond for Rs. 50,000 each with two sureties, subject to conditions of cooperation, non-influence of witnesses, and appearance before police.

Dinoop Jacob Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD NOVEMBER 2011 / 2ND AGRAHAYANA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 8684 of 2011()

¶4

----------------------------OS.16/1977 of I ADDL.DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM CRIME No.334/2011 OF KOOTHATTUKULAM POLICE STATION

¶5

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 5 :-

¶6

--------------------------------------------------

¶7

1. DINOOP JACOB, S/O. M.C. CHACKO, AGED 32, MEENKUZHICKAL HOUSE, MANNATHOOR.P.O., PAMPAKUDA.

¶8

2. BIJU THOMAS, S/O. THOMAS.M.C. AGED 36, MEENKUZHICKAL HOUSE, MANNATHOOR.P.O., PAMPAKUDA.

¶9

3. SHIJO BABY, S/O. BABY MATHAI, AGED 35, VALLIYAKUNNAL(NEDUMPULLIYIL) MANNATHOOR.P.O., PAMPAKUDA.

¶10

4. M.C. CHACKO, S/O. CHACKO, AGED 61 MEENKUZHICKAL HOUSE, MANNATHOOR.P.O., PAMPAKUDA.

¶11

5. M.C. POULOSE, S/O. CHERIAN, AGED 55, MANDANATHU HOUSE, MANNATHOOR.P.O., PAMPAKUDA. BY ADV. SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE SRI.M.A.MOHAMMED SIRAJ SRI.P.PRIJITH SRI.ANEESH JAMES

¶12

RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT :-

¶13

--------------------------------------------------

¶14

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM (CRIME NO.334 OF 2011 OF KOOTHATTUKULAM POLICE STATION)

¶15

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.RAJESH VIJAYAN

¶16

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

jvt

¶18

N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, J.

¶19

B.A. No.8684 of 2011

¶20

Dated this the 23^rd day of November 2011

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

This application is filed for anticipatory bail.

¶23

Petitioners 1 to 3 are the accused in Crime No.334/2011 of Koothattukulam Police Station. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that petitioners 4 and 5 are not accused. That submission is recorded. The learned Public Prosecutor would also submit that there was a dispute with regard to the religious services of that particular church and there was a procession by one group and complainant was stated to be a member of that procession.

¶24

The allegation is that these petitioners were stated to have attacked the members of the procession and thus the incident took place. The offences alleged against them are under Secs.323, 326, 294(b), 427 and 506(i) r/w 34 IPC. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that Crime No.335/2011 was registered against the de facto complainant in Crime No.334/2011 and others

¶25

B.A. No.8684 of 2011

¶26

-: 2 :-

¶27

alleging offences under Secs.323, 324, 506(i) and 427 r/w 34 IPC. It is contended by the prosecution that fracture was caused to the nasal bone of the de facto complainant as one of the accused hit him with a stone. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that it is actually counter blast to Crime No.335/2011.

¶28

Considering all the aspects, this bail application is allowed with the following conditions :-

¶29

(i)In case the petitioners are arrested or if they are surrender before the learned Magistrate within 10 days, they shall be released on bail on their executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum.

¶30

(ii)If the investigating officer required the accused to be questioned for recovery of any material object or for such other purposes, then they shall be permitted to be questioned by the police for the same.

¶31

(iii)Petitioners shall co-operate with the investigation

¶32

B.A. No.8684 of 2011

¶33

-: 3 :-

¶34

and they shall not influence the witnesses or tamper with the evidences.

¶35

(iv)They shall not leave the State of Kerala without permission of the court.

¶36

(v)They shall appear before the Investigating Officer on

¶37

all Saturdays between 10AM and 11AM until further orders.

¶38

N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE.

¶39

Jvt

Dinoop Jacob v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dinoop Jacob 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

K.T.Ali Vs Aaminakutty and Another

M.J.Joseph Vs State of Kerala

Arul Vs State of Kerala

T.Santhosh Vs State of Kerala

Pradeep Cherian Vs State of Kerala

Bhageerathi Bai Vs Pure Petro Chem India P.Ltd.