Allowed

Jijan Thomas v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC4 Mar 2013Bail Appl./1339/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed bail applications filed by two accused persons. The court imposed strict conditions including bond security, reporting requirements, and prohibitions on leaving the state or tampering with evidence.

What did the court decide?

The petitioners were released on bail on executing a bond of Rs. 25,000 each with two solvent sureties, subject to six specific conditions regarding reporting, movement, and conduct.

Jijan Thomas Vs the State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH 2013/13TH PHALGUNA 1934

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 1339 of 2013 ()

¶6

AGAINST THE CRIME NO.85/2013 OF BINANIPURAM POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶7

PETITIONER/2ND ACCUSED:

¶8

JIJAN THOMAS, S/O.THOMAS, AGED 31 YEARS, VELLAPANMIYELI HOUSE, CHERUVALLIKULAM BHAGAM, MURINJAPUZHA KARA, PERUVANTHANAM VILLAGE, PEERUMED TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT PIN 685532.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.P.A.MUJEEB

¶10

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶11

THE STATE OF KERALA, THROUGH THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, BINANIPURAM POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN 31.

¶12

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.RASHEED

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04-03-2013, ALONG WITH B.A.NO.1535/2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

¶15

P.BHAVADASAN, J.

¶16

Bail Application Nos.1339 & 1535 OF 2013

¶17

Dated this the 4^th day of March, 2013.

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

The petitioners are accused Nos.2 and 8 respectively in Crime No.85/2013 of Binanipuram Police Station who are alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Sections 342, 365, 371, 376 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, Section 14(c) of Foreigner's Act, Section 67(A) of the Information Technology Act and Section 3, 5(c), 6(a)(b) of the Immoral Traffic Prevention Act.

¶20

The allegation against the petitioner in B.A.No.1339/2013 is that he forced the victim to have illicit intercourse with several persons and as far as the petitioner in B.A.No.1535/2013 is concerned, the allegation is that he committed rape on the victim. The petitioners would say that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated with ulterior motive and they have not committed any such act as alleged. At any rate, according to the petitioners, they have been in custody from 01.02.2013 and

¶21

B.A. Nos.1339 & 1535/2013

¶22

¶23

12.02.2013 respectively and their continued custody is unnecessary.

¶24

Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the petitions. It is pointed out that if this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioners, stringent conditions may be imposed.

¶25

After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Public Prosecutor and after having perused the records, the claim of the petitioners that they are innocent cannot be accepted. How far they are involved in the case is a matter to be considered later. The petitioners have been in custody from 01.02.2013 and 12.02.2013 respectively.

¶26

After having considered the various aspects, it is felt

¶27

that the continued custody of the petitioners is unnecessary. Therefore, the applications are allowed on the following conditions:

¶28

i) The petitioners shall be released on bail on their executing a bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) each with two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court concerned.

¶29

B.A. Nos.1339 & 1535/2013

¶30

¶31

ii) The learned Magistrate shall ensure the identity of the sureties and also the veracity of the tax receipts produced by them.

¶32

iii) The petitioners shall report before the Investigating Officer on every Wednesday between 9 a.m and 10 a.m until further orders.

¶33

iv) The petitioners shall not leave the State of Kerala without prior permission of the Magistrate Court concerned.

¶34

v) The petitioners shall not tamper or attempt to tamper with the evidence or influence or try to influence the witness.

¶35

vi) If any of the condition is violated, the bail granted shall stand cancelled and the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court concerned, on being satisfied of the said fact, may take such steps as are available to him in law.

¶36

P.BHAVADASAN JUDGE

¶37

smp

Jijan Thomas v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jijan Thomas v. the 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

Reveendran Pillai Vs State of Kerala

Moideenkunhi.K.a. Vs State of Kerala

Aneesh Vs State of Kerala

M.v.Anilkumar Vs State of Kerala

V.Sheela Vs State of Kerala

Ragesh M.V. Vs the State of Kerala