Allowed

George @ Achankunju v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC6 Dec 2013Bail Appl./7991/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala granted limited bail to the 2nd accused in a murder case, directing him to surrender for interrogation on 12.12.2013. If arrested, he would be released on bond for two months subject to conditions including cooperation with the investigation and prohibition from leaving the state. Bail is limited pending case disposal.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted limited bail; directed to surrender for interrogation on 12.12.2013; if arrested, release on bond for two months.

George @ Achankunju Vs State of Kerala — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2013/15TH AGRAHAYANA, 1935

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 7991 of 2013 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 1672/2013 OF PATHANAMTHITTA POLICE STATION , PATHANAMTITTA

¶7

PETITIONER: ACCUSED:

¶8

GEORGE @ ACHANKUNJU, AGED 61 YEARS, S/O. CHANDA PILLA GEEVARGHESE, KARIKKINETH, PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.B.RAMAN PILLAI SRI.R.ANIL SRI.SUNILKUMAR SRI.SUJESH MENON V.B. SRI.T.ANIL KUMAR SRI.MANU TOM SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM (NILACKAPPILLIL) SRI.M.VIVEK

¶10

RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT:

¶11

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

¶12

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.SREEJITH

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06-12-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

¶15

THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J.

¶16

--------------------------------

¶17

Bail Appl. No. 7991 of 2013

¶18

Dated this the 6^th day of December 2013

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

Petitioner is the 2^nd accused, in Crime No.1672

¶21

of 2013 of the Pathanamthitta Police station for the offences punishable under Sec.302, 201, 120B, 109, 212 read with Sec.34 of the Indian Penal Code, apprehends arrest and has filed the application.

¶22

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the

¶23

application. It is submitted that the petitioner is a Proprietor of a textile shop where the deceased was working as cashier at the relevant time. On the fateful day, the Manager and others in charge of the shop found deficit of around Rs.1,00,000/- in the day's collection in the shop. The deceased was questioned. The petitioner who obtained his bio-data learned that he had worked in a hotel at Kottayam. The petitioner contacted the owner of that hotel and learned that service of the petitioner was terminated for misappropriating funds. It is said that the petitioner slapped the deceased on his cheek. He got and got assistance of the 1^st accused, his brother who is

¶24

Bail Appl. No. 7991 of 2013 2

¶25

manning another branch of the textile shop elsewhere. The 1^st accused also questioned the deceased. The 1^st accused took the deceased to the pantry of the textile shop where he is said to have assaulted the deceased with an iron rod and kicked him on his abdomen. The deceased succumbed to injuries. The Postmortem examination revealed that among other thing, blunt injury to the abdomen caused the death. It is submitted that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required having regard to the nature of the offences involved.

¶26

Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner

¶27

has submitted that even as per version of the prosecution, the petitioner has no role in the incident and at any rate, cannot be tagged on with the 1^st accused under Sec.34 of the Indian Penal Code, there is no material on record to show that there was any common intention shared by the petitioner with the 1^st accused to cause death of the deceased. It is submitted that even as per the version of the prosecution, the 1^st accused had, after taking the deceased to the pantry, bolted its door from inside which

¶28

Bail Appl. No. 7991 of 2013 3

¶29

meant that all others were kept in the dark as to what (allegedly) transpired in the pantry. A further submission is that the petitioner is suffering from various illness and would the last person to permit such an untoward incident to happen in his shop which would only mar his future business and life.

¶30

Having regard to the rival contentions, I am

¶31

inclined to think that for the time being, custody of the petitioner is not required and at the same time, he has to be interrogated by the investigating agency. Any order that this Court may pass in this matter shall not affect investigation of the case. For, at this stage, I cannot make any observation as to the alleged involvement of the petitioner in the (alleged) incident. In these circumstances, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner for a limited period.

¶32

Resultantly, the application is disposed of as under.

¶33

Petitioner shall surrender before the

¶34

officer investigating Crime No.1672 of 2013 of the Pathanamthitta Police Station on 12.12.2013

¶35

Bail Appl. No. 7991 of 2013 4

¶36

at 10.00 am for interrogation.

¶37

In case interrogation of the petitioner is

¶38

not completed that day, it is open to the investigating officer to direct presence of the petitioner on any other day/days and time which the petitioner shall comply.

¶39

In case after interrogation the petitioner is arrested, he shall be released by the arresting officer for a period of two months from the date of his arrest on his executing bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) with two sureties for the like sum each before the arresting officer and subject to the following conditions.

¶40

a) Petitioner shall report to the

¶41

investigating officer as and when required for interrogation.

¶42

b) Petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation of the case.

¶43

Bail Appl. No. 7991 of 2013 5

¶44

c) Petitioner shall not get involved any

¶45

offence during the period of this bail.

¶46

d) Petitioner shall not intimidate or influence the witnesses.

¶47

e) Petitioner, except with the permission of the jurisdictional magistrate shall not go beyond the State of Kerala during the said period of two months.

¶48

f) In case any of the above conditions is violated, it is open to the investigating officer to file application before the learned magistrate for cancellation of the bail granted hereby, as held

¶49

in P.K. Shaji V. State of Kerala (AIR 2006 SC

¶50

100).

¶51

Sd/THOMAS P. JOSEPH JUDGE

¶52

/ True Copy /

¶53

¶54

P.A. To Judge

George @ Achankunju v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

George @ Achankunju 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A.R.Ajith Vs State of Kerala

Balagurumoorthy Karthic Kalidasan Vs the State of Kerala

N.a.Ali Vs State of Kerala

Irshad T.M. Vs State of Kerala

Murali Menon Vs State of Kerala

Muhammed Faisal Vs the Sub Inspector of Police