Allowed

Jith Babu v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC10 Jun 2014Bail Appl./3247/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a bail application filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. by four accused persons in a case involving unlawful assembly and assault. Considering the doubt regarding the applicability of Section 354 IPC and the nature of the weapon, bail was granted subject to conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners released on bail on executing a bond for Rs. 25,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like sum.

Jith Babu Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.ABRAHAM MATHEW

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE 2014/20TH JYAISHTA, 1936

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 3247 of 2014 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 267/2014 OF SREEKANDAPURAM POLICE STATION, KANNUR DISTRICT

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 TO 4 :

¶8

1. JITH BABU,

¶9

S/O. EMMANUEL, AGED 29 YEARS, THURUTHIMATTATHIL HOUSE CHEMPANTHOTTY P.O., NIDIYENGA AMSOM, TALIPARAMBA TALUK KANNUR DISTRICT-670 632.

¶10

2. SUBEESH SUKUMARAN,

¶11

S/O. SUKUMARAN, AGED 24 YEARS

¶12

ETTIYAMPARA HOUSE, CHEMPANTHOTTY P.O.

¶13

NIDIYENGA AMSOM, TALIPARAMBA TALUK

¶14

KANNUR DISTRICT-670 632.

¶15

3. BILJO MATHEW,

¶16

S/O. MATHEW, AGED 22 YEARS

¶17

KEERIKKATTU HOUSE, CHEMPANTHOTTY P.O. NIDIYENGA AMSOM, TALIPARAMBA TALUK

¶18

KANNUR DISTRICT-670 632.

¶19

4. SILJO MATHEW,

¶20

S/O. MATHEW, AGED 20 YEARS

¶21

KEERIKKATTU HOUSE, CHEMPANTHOTTY P.O. NIDIYENGA AMSOM, TALIPARAMBA TALUK

¶22

KANNUR DISTRICT-670 632.

¶23

BY ADVS.SRI.V.A.SATHEESH

¶24

SRI.V.T.MADHAVANUNNI SRI.J.ABHILASH

¶25

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT :

¶26

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA THROUGH S.H.O. SREEKANDAPUAM POLICE STATION, KANNUR DT.

¶27

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. DHANESH MATHEW MANOORAN

¶28

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10-06-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶29

¶30

K. ABRAHAM MATHEW, J.

¶31

B.A. No. 3247 of 2014

¶32

Dated this the 10^th day of June, 2014

¶33

ORDER

¶34

Petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶35

Petitioners are accused No. 1 to 4 in Crime No. 267/2014 of

¶36

Sreekandapuram Police Station which has been registered for the offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 341 and 354 read with Section 149 I.P.C.

¶37

The allegation is that when the de facto-complainant and others were travelling in a car, the petitioners alongwith some others formed themselves into an unlawful assembly, armed with a reaper, wrongfully restrained the de facto-complainant and others and assaulted them with reaper. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the real assailants are the de facto-complainant and others who attacked the petitioners, for which the Police have registered a case against them. This is a false case got registered by the de factocomplainant.

¶38

B.A. No. 3247/2014

¶39

¶40

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶41

This appears to be an assaulted case. It is doubtful whether Section 354 I.P.C. will be attracted. The petitioners allegedly assaulted the victim with a piece of wood. There is no allegation that it is a dangerous weapon. The weapon is not

¶42

described in the documents produced by the prosecution. At this stage, it is doubtful whether Section 324 I.P.C. is also attracted. Having regard to these facts, I think it proper to grant the prayer of the petitioners.

¶43

In the result, this application is allowed.

¶44

The petitioners shall be released on bail on their executing a bond for Rs. 25,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like sum if they are arrested by the Police in connection with this case.

¶45

They shall appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation if they are for required by him in writing.

¶46

They shall not destroy or tamper with evidence.

¶47

B.A. No. 3247/2014

¶48

¶49

They shall not harass the defacto-complainant or her relatives.

¶50

This order is not applicable if the petitioners choose surrender before the Magistrate concerned and in such case the learned Magistrate may take appropriate action in accordance with the law.

¶51

K. ABRAHAM MATHEW JUDGE

¶52

Jith Babu v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jith Babu 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

Abdul Gadhaf Mannil Vs State of Kerala

P.a.Rasheed Vs Special Tahsildar (Rr), Aluva and Others

V.Mammu Vs State and Ors.

Sadiq Ali Vs State of Kerala

Anu Vs the State of Kerala

Mujeeb Vs State of Kerala