Allowed

Bijoy v. Kerala State

Kerala HC6 Dec 2012Bail Appl./8546/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed pre-arrest bail application for three accused persons in a criminal case, citing doubts regarding the incident's origin and mutual injuries. Applicants ordered to surrender within five days and comply with standard bail conditions.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed; petitioners to surrender before Investigating Officer on or before 15.12.2012 and execute bond for Rs. 10,000 with two solvent sureties each.

Bijoy Vs Kerala State — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2012/15TH AGRAHAYANA 1934

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 8546 of 2012 ()

¶6

(CRIME NO.317/2012 OF PERUMPETTY POLIE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA DIST)

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO. 2 TO 4:

¶8

1. BIJOY, AGED 38 YEARS, MELAPURAYDATHIL VEETTIL, MALAPPALLY TALUK, EZHUMATTOOR VILLAGE,

¶9

EZHUMATTOOR MURI, VALAKUZHI P.O.

¶10

2. MONCY, AGED 40 YEARS S/O. YOHANNAN @ KUNJUKUTTY, MELAPURAYDATHIL VEETTIL MALAPPALLY TALUK, EZHUMATTOOR VILLAGE

¶11

EZHUMATTOOR MURI, VALAKUZHI P.O.

¶12

3. THANKAN, AGED 42 YEARS, MELAPURAYDATHIL VEETTIL, MALAPPALLY TALUK EZHUMATTOOR VILLAGE, EZHUMATTOOR MURI VALAKUZHI P.O.

¶13

BY ADV. SRI.P.HARIDAS

¶14

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT & STATE:

¶15

1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.

¶16

2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE PERUMPETTY POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA-689645.

¶17

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.S.SREEJITH

¶18

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06-12-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

¶20

P. BHAVADASAN, J.

¶21

- - - - B.A. No. 8546 of 2012

¶22

- - - - Dated this the 6^th day of December, 2012.

¶23

ORDER

¶24

Based on the fact that in respect of the incident

¶25

in which the petitioners found themselves arrayed as accused, there is a counter case also as Crime No.319 of 2012, which according to the learned counsel for the petitioners belie the version given by defacto complainant against them, it is contended that the petitioners are entitled to pre-arrest bail.

¶26

After having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor and after perusing the records, especially the annexures produced by the petitioners and also the records in the counter case handed over by the learned counsel for the petitioners, it appears that there seems to be doubt regarding the origin and development of the incident. It is also contended on behalf of the petitioners that the incident has not occurred

¶27

B.A.8546/2012. 2

¶28

as alleged in the complaint against the petitioners. A deeper probe is not warranted at this point of time. It is evident that parties at both sides suffered injuries. Considering the various aspects, it is felt that the petitioners are entitled to pre-arrest bail.

¶29

Therefore, this application is allowed on the following conditions:

¶30

i) Petitioners shall surrender before the Investigating Officer on or before 15.12.2012, who after interrogation shall produce them before the JFCM court concerned, which court, on applications for bail being moved by the petitioners, shall release them on bail on each of them executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/(Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the said court.

¶31

ii) The learned Magistrate may ensure the identity of the sureties and the veracity of the tax

¶32

B.A.8546/2012.

¶33

¶34

receipts produced by the sureties for the purpose of executing the bond.

¶35

iii) Petitioners shall report before the Investigating Officer as and when required by him.

¶36

iv) Petitioners shall not tamper or attempt to tamper with the evidence or influence or try to influence the witnesses.

¶37

v) If any condition is violated, bail granted to the petitioners shall stand cancelled, and the JFCM concerned may take such steps as are available to

¶38

him in law.

¶39

P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE

¶40

sb.

Bijoy v. Kerala State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bijoy v. Kerala State

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

Bhuvanachandran Vs State of Kerala

Vasavan Vs State of Kerala

Rahul R Vs State of Kerala

Niyas Mohammed Vs State of Kerala

Shaju Vs State of Kerala

Manu Vs State of Kerala