Dismissed

Manoj v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC12 Mar 2013Bail Appl./1736/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment dismisses a bail application filed by four accused persons. The court, noting that the victims suffered serious injuries including fractures and that the investigation was at an infant stage, held that the nature of the offences precluded the exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction in favour of the petitioners.

What did the court decide?

Bail application dismissed; accused advised to surrender by a specified date for subsequent bail consideration.

Manoj Vs 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

TUESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH 2013/21ST PHALGUNA 1934

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 1736 of 2013 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 294/2013 OF KUNDARA POLICE STATION , KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 4:

¶8

1. MANOJ, AGED 29 YEARS, S/O.JUSTIN, MANOJ BHAVAN, KUMBALAM, KOLLAM.

¶9

2. RAJESH, AGED 29 YEARS, S/O.KOCHUKUTTAN, KUNNATHU VEEDU, KUMBALAM, KOLLAM.

¶10

3. KOCHUKUTTAN @ MARY DASAN, AGED 65 YEARS, S/O.LATE LAZAR, -DO-

¶11

4. RAHUL @ JOJO, AGED 26 YEARS, S/O.KOCHUKUTTAN -DO-

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.SUNNY ZACHARIA

¶13

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶14

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KUNDARA POLICE STATION (KOLLAM DISTRICT), THROUGH THE LEARNED PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA.

¶15

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.ROY THOMAS.

¶16

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12-03-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

rs.

¶18

P. BHAVADASAN, J.

¶19

¶20

B.A. No. 1736 of 2013

¶21

¶22

Dated this the 12^th day of March, 2013.

¶23

ORDER

¶24

Petitioners stand accused of having committed offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 326, 354 and 394 read with Section 34 of I.P.C.

¶25

The petitioners would say that they are innocent and they have been falsely implicated with ulterior motive. According to them, there was a quarrel between two groups, in which some might have got injured. But deliberately the incident had been given a distorted version to suit the convenience of the prosecution. According to the petitioners, the complaint was laid much later and that shows that it was filed after deliberation and consultation. The very allegation mentioned in the complaint would show that the story is a cooked up one and the allegations have been made only

¶26

with the intention of implicating the accused in a false case.

¶27

B.A.1736/2013.

¶28

¶29

Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the petition by pointing out that the acts committed by the petitioners are very serious and they deserve no sympathy. It is also pointed out that due to the act of the petitioners, one of the victims suffered two fractures and also that they had badly assaulted the other victims. It is also pointed out that investigation is at an infant stage.

¶30

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor and having perused the records, the claim of the petitioners that they are totally innocent cannot be countenanced. The version given by them is not the version seen mentioned in the records. It is true that there was two days delay in lodging the FIS. But to characterize it as a consequence of deliberation and consultation is too early. The fact remains that the victims have suffered serious injuries. It is also seen from the records that two chains were snatched from the neck of two ladies and the claim made by the petitioners

¶31

B.A.1736/2013.

¶32

¶33

that that does not attract Section 394 I.P.C. need not be considered at this stage.

¶34

The nature of the offences, the manner with the offences were committed, the injuries caused to the victims, the weapons used and also the fact that investigation is at an infant stage precludes this court from exercising the extraordinary jurisdiction in favour of the petitioners.

¶35

This applications is accordingly dismissed.

¶36

However, if the petitioners are so advised, they may surrender before the Investigating Officer on or before 19.3.2012, who, after interrogation, shall produce them before the Court concerned, which court, on applications for bail being moved by the petitioners, shall dispose of the same in accordance with law.

¶37

P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE

¶38

sb.

Manoj v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj 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

Mani @ Muhammedali Vs State of Kerala

Renjith Vs State of Kerala

Manoj Vs State of Kerala

Renjith Vs State

M.K.Siddique Vs State of Kerala

Shyne P.K. Vs State of Kerala