Dismissed

Jacob v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC17 Jul 2012Bail Appl./4566/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bail application was filed by the second accused in Crl.M.P. No. 1592/2012 of Aluva Police Station under various sections of IPC. The court summarily rejected the plea for anticipatory bail and directed surrender within ten days for Magistrate consideration.

What did the court decide?

Bail application dismissed; directed to surrender to IO within ten days; future bail to be sought from Magistrate.

Jacob Vs State of Kerala — Anticipatory Bail | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JULY 2012/26TH ASHADHA 1934

¶5

CRIME NO. 1592 OF 2012 OF ALUVA POLICE STATION PETITIONER(S)/2ND ACCUSED:

¶6

JACOB, S/O.LATE POULOSE,, AGED 50 YEARS KELAPPARAMBATH HOUSE, ALANGAD, ALUVA.

¶7

BY ADVS.SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU (SR.) SRI.THOMAS J.ANAKKALLUNKAL SMT.M.A.SHEEBA

¶8

COMPLAINANT(S)/COMPLAINANT :

¶9

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM.

¶10

ADDL.2. WILSON, AGED 49 YEARS, S/O.ANTONY, KAKRUVELI HOUSE, ESTATE ROAD, COLONYPADY KARA, ALUVA EAST VILLAGE

¶11

IS IMPLEADED AS ADDL. 2ND RESPONDENT AS PER ORDER DATED 17-7-2012 IN CRL.M.APPLN. NO.4604/2012.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.P.N.SUKUMARAN FOR R2

¶13

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI SREEJITH V.S.

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17-07-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

N. K. BALAKRISHNAN, J.

¶16

=================

¶17

B. A. No. 4566 of 2012

¶18

=================

¶19

Dated this the 17^th day of July, 2012

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

Petitioner is the second accused in Crime No. 1592 of 2012 of Aluva Police Station. Offences alleged against him are under sections 341, 323, 326, 308, 392, 506(ii) r/w Sn.34 IPC. Apprehending arrest, this petition is filed for anticipatory bail.

¶22

The de facto complainant is represented by his counsel. Heard both sides .

¶23

The incident allegedly took place on 13-6-2012 at 8.45 p.m. The first accused had long standing enmity with the de facto complainant. According to the complainant, this petitioner and the first accused were waiting for the complainant and when he reached the place of occurrence, the first accused hit his right cheek and head with 'idikkatta', this petitioner kicked him on the abdomen; when the complainant fell down the first accused again

¶24

B.A.No.4566/2012 - 2 -

¶25

attacked the complainant and a gold chain weighing 12 sovereigns was lost. Section 392 was added in the F.I.R., which was subsequently deleted, the prosecution contends.

¶26

Learned counsel for the complainant submits that there is document to show the purchase of the gold chain. Whatever that be, there are other offences registered under sections 326 ad 308 IPC. Learned counsel for the complainant also submits that other injuries sustained by the claimant are seen noted in the wound certificate.

¶27

Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no satisfactory evidence to show that offence under section 326 IPC has been committed. It is further submitted that the only role played by this petitioner is that he kicked on the abdomen of the complainant. Since both of them were stated to have been waiting for the complainant to attack, learned counsel for the de facto complainant submits, the petitioner also should be held liable. I am not entering into the merits of

B.A.No.4566/2012

the case.

Considering all the aspects, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The petitioner will surrender before the Investigating Officer within ten days. After interrogation the petitioner shall be produced before the Magistrate and if the petitioner applies for bail the learned Magistrate will dispose of the same in accordance with law, but after hearing the learned APP as well and also after perusal of the case diary, if so required and also after considering the facts and circumstances of the case. If the Investigating Officer files application for police custody for further interrogation that shall also be considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with law.

¶32

N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE

¶33

Jacob v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

Sethuraman.T.R. Vs Sub Inspector of Police

Shylaja Vs State of Kerala

Shanavas Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Rasheed Vs State of Kerala

Denny George Vs State of Kerala

Vilasini C. Vs the State of Kerala