Allowed

Jayan @ Baiju v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC9 Aug 2012Bail Appl./5500/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order granted antecedent bail to the petitioner, a second accused in a case under IPC sections 452, 324, 294(b), and 308. The High Court directed surrender within two weeks, production before the Magistrate, and strict conditions including execution of bond, appearance for interrogation, affidavit of non-reoffending, and no leaving the state without permission.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to surrender within two weeks; Magistrate to grant bail on conditions of bond, appearance, passport filing, non-interference affidavit, and restriction on leaving Kerala.

Jayan @ Baiju Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF AUGUST 2012/18TH SRAVANA 1934

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 5500 of 2012 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 832/2012 OF CHADAYAMANGALAM POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED :

¶8

BAIJU @ JAYAN, 35 YRS., VAYALARIKATHU VEEDU, THEVANNOOR, ELAMADU KOLLAM.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.SYAM J SAM

¶10

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶11

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

¶12

*ADDL. R2 IMPLEADED

¶13

*2. REKHA, 32 YEARS, D/O. SAROJAM, AKHIL BHAVAN, ELAMADU VILLAGE, KOLLAM.

¶14

*ADDL. R2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 9/8/12 IN CR. M.A. NO. 5372/12 IN BA NO. 5500/12.

¶15

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. JASMINE V.H. R2 BY ADV. SMT.DHANYA BABU

¶16

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09-08-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

¶18

N. K. BALAKRISHNAN, J.

¶19

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

¶20

B. A. No. 5500 of 2012

¶21

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

¶22

Dated this the 9^th day of August, 2012

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

Petitioner is the second accused in Crime No. 832 of

¶25

2012 of Chadayamangalam Police Station, Kollam district. F.I.R. was registered alleging offences under sections 452, 324, 294(b) and 308 IPC. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that subsequently section 452 IPC has been deleted.

¶26

The injured is the husband of the complainant. It is stated that the injured was a drunkard. On the date of the

¶27

incident, when the husband of the de facto complainant attacked the de facto complainant and another, the petitioner who is a neighbour trespassed into the house and inflicted very serious injury on the head of the husband of the de facto complainant, it is alleged. Since they are neighbours, it seems, they do not want to see that the petitioner is denied anticipatory bail.

¶28

Considering all the aspects, the following directions are issued:

¶29

B.A.No.5500/2012 - 2 -

¶30

The petitioner shall surrender before the Investigating Officer within two weeks from today. After interrogation the petitioner shall be produced before the learned Magistrate. When applied for bail by petitioner, the learned Magistrate will, considering the nature of the case, grant bail to him but on the following conditions:

¶31

a) The petitioner shall execute a bond for Rs.25,000/- (rupees twenty five thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate. If in case the Magistrate has any doubt about the genuineness or correctness of the tax receipts produced by the sureties, the learned Magistrate can insist for production of the attested photo copies of the original title deeds of the sureties.

¶32

b) The petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by the Investigating Officer and he should appear before the Investigating Officer on all Mondays and Fridays between 9.30 AM to 11.30 AM until further orders.

¶33

c) The petitioner shall produce his original passport

¶34

B.A.No.5500/2012 - 3 -

¶35

before the learned Magistrate. If he is not having any valid passport, he should file an affidavit regarding the same before the Magistrate.

¶36

d) The petitioner will also file an affidavit stating that he will abide by all the conditions as mentioned above and that he will not commit any offence similar to the offence involved in this case and that he shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶37

e) The petitioner shall not leave the State of Kerala without permission of the court.

¶38

f) The learned Magistrate will also ensure the identity of the sureties by insisting production of electoral photo identity cards/driving licence etc.

¶39

N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE

¶40

Jayan @ Baiju v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jayan @ Baiju 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

Vincent Vs State of Kerala

Vishnu Vs State of Kerala

Sadanandan Vs State of Kerala

Muneer Vs Sub Inspector of Police

Mujeeb Rahiman N.V. Vs the State of Kerala

Vijayan.M.v. Vs State of Kerala