Allowed

Benny John v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC28 Nov 2013Bail Appl./7206/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala, in a bail application, held that the case involved a fracture injury and testimonial discrepancies warranted extraordinary jurisdiction. Bail was granted subject to surrender to the IO, appearance via bond, and non-interference with evidence.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed subject to surrender to IO by 05.12.2013, bond of Rs.15,000 with two solvent sureties, weekly reporting, and non-tampering conditions.

Benny John Vs State of Kerala — Cheating and Forgery | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2013/7TH AGRAHAYANA, 1935

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 7206 of 2013 (A)

¶6

[CRIME NO. 1429/2013 OF SAKTHIKULANGARA POLICE STATION , KOLLAM]

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 3:

¶8

1. BENNY JOHN, AGED 27 YEARS,

¶9

S/O. JOHN, BENNY NIVAS, (MULAYIL THOPPU),

¶10

SAKTHIKULANGARA, SAKTHIKULANGARA VILLAGE,

¶11

KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶12

2. ALEX HENRY, AGED 33 YEARS, S/O. HENRY, PANDARATHOPPY, MARUTHADY,

¶13

SAKTHIKULANGARA VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶14

3. AGUSTIN THANKACHAN @ VALIYA KUTTAN, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O. THANKACHAN, EDACHIRAKKAL, MARUTHADY.P.O, KOLLAM. SAKTHIKULANGARA , KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶15

BY ADV. SRI.C.RAJENDRAN.

¶16

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶17

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

¶18

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. P. MAYA.

¶19

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28-11-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

Prv.

¶21

P.BHAVADASAN, J.

¶22

Bail Application No.7206 OF 2013

¶23

Dated this the 28^th day of November, 2013.

¶24

O R D E R

¶25

The petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 3 in Crime No.1429/2013 of Sakthikulangara Police Station who are alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Sections 447, 323, 324, 326 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. The incident which gave rise to the crime is alleged to have occurred on 15.10.2013 at about 2 p.m when the accused persons are alleged to have trespassed into the house of the victim and caused injuries to him.

¶26

The petitioners would say that they are innocent and

¶27

have been falsely implicated in the matter. At any rate, the incident is not as alleged against them. The incident had taken place in an entirely different manner. Though they admit that there was exchange of words and quarrel between the de facto complainant and the petitioners, they deny that the incident has happened as alleged against them.

¶28

B.A. No.7206/2013

¶29

¶30

This Court, when the matter came up on the previous occasion, directed the petitioners to implead the de facto complainant and it was so done. Notice was ordered to the de facto complainant which returned with the endorsement 'not known'.

¶31

Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the petition and pointed out that the investigation is at an infant stage.

¶32

After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Public Prosecutor and also after having perused the records, the claim of the petitioners that they are totally innocent may not be capable of acceptance. As rightly pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor, the acts committed by the petitioners resulted in a fracture of left hand of the victim which cannot be taken lightly. But, on going through the First Information Statement, it is seen that after the assailants left the house, they were followed by the victim and it is stated that they beaten him up. There seems to be some suspicion regarding that aspect. Whatever that be, considering the totality of the circumstances, it is felt that this is a fit case where extra ordinary

¶33

B.A. No.7206/2013

¶34

¶35

jurisdiction of this Court needs to be exercised in favour of the petitioners.

¶36

Therefore, the application is allowed on the following conditions:

¶37

i) The petitioners shall surrender before the Investigating Officer on or before 05.12.2013 who, after interrogation, shall produce them before the Court concerned, which court, on application for bail being moved by the petitioners, shall release them on bail on their executing bond for a sum of Rs.15,000/(Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) each with two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the Court concerned.

¶38

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

¶39

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

¶40

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

¶41

B.A. No.7206/2013

¶42

¶43

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

¶44

Sd/-

¶45

P.BHAVADASAN JUDGE

¶46

smp

¶47

// True Copy //

¶48

P.A. to Judge.

Benny John v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Benny John 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

Abhilash T.V. Vs State of Kerala

Jose Binu Vs State of Kerala

Unnikrishnan Vs State of Kerala

Joji Jose Vs Soniya P.J.

Bineesh Vs State of Kerala

Anil Sankaran Vs State of Kerala