Disposed

Janeesh Kumar v. the S.I. of Police

Kerala HC13 Feb 2014Bail Appl./906/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners, directing their surrender within seven days for interrogation. Bail from the Magistrate was permitted on strict conditions including surety bonds, appearance during specified hours, and prohibition on leaving the State without permission.

What did the court decide?

Directions issued for surrender within seven days and conditional bail from the Magistrate, including bond execution and specific conduct restrictions.

Janeesh Kumar Vs the S.I. of Police — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2014/24TH MAGHA, 1935Q

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 906 of 2014 ()

¶6

CRIME NO.36/2014 OF CHITTAR POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTITTA

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED :-

¶8

1. JENEESH KUMAR, AGED 34 YEARS S/O UTHAMAN, KALAYIL VEEDU CHITTAR SEETHATHODE VILLAGE, KONNI TALUK PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶9

2. SURAJ, AGED 28 YEARS

¶10

S/O.SOMARAJAN, K.S.E.B.QUARTERS CHITTAR SEETHATHODE VILLAGE, KONNI TALUK PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶11

3. JOHNSON @ GEORGE VARGHESE, AGED 43 YEARS S/O.VARGHESE, PARACKAL VEEDU, KOTTAMONPARA CHITTAR SEETHATHODE VILLAGE, KONNI TALUK PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶12

4. SAJI.P.THOMAS, AGED 41 YEARS S/O.THOMAS, PALANGATTU VEEDU, GURUNATHANMANNU CHITTAR SEETHATHODE VILLAGE, KONNI TALUK PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶13

BY ADVS.SRI.V.SETHUNATH SRI.S.JUSTUS

¶14

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT/STATE :-

¶15

1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHITTAR POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT PIN-689663.

¶16

2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682031.

¶17

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.RAJESH VIJAYAN

¶18

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13-02-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

jvt

¶20

N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, J.

¶21

B.A. No.906 of 2014

¶22

Dated this the 13^th day of February 2014

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

Petitioners are some of the accused in Crime No.36/2014 of Chittar Police Station. The offences alleged against them are punishable under Secs.447, 294(b), 323, 354 and 427 r/w 34 IPC. Apprehending arrest, this petition is filed for anticipatory bail.

¶25

It is alleged that these accused persons committed criminal trespass into the residential compound of the complainant and after abusing the complainant and others using obscene words, they voluntarily caused hurt to the complainant's mother and wife and also outraged their modesty by tearing the nighty worn by the mother of the complainant. The further allegation is that they also destroyed two cars kept in the courtyard of the house of the complainant. The fact that the front, rear and side glasses of both cars were destroyed could be seen from the scene

B.A. No.906 of 2014

-: 2 :-

mahazar as well.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the case has been registered because of political enmity between two groups and that the allegations are not correct. But, at the same time, the scene mahazar speaks with regard to the damages caused.

¶30

Learned Public Prosecutor has strongly opposed the petition stating that the first accused is involved in another crime and that the proceedings have been initiated against him under Sec.107 of Cr.P.C. and that if he is granted bail, that will create further problem in that locality.

¶31

Considering all the aspects the following directions are issued:

¶32

The petitioners shall surrender before the Investigating Officer within seven days from today. After interrogation the accused shall be produced before the learned Magistrate. When applied for bail by the accused, the learned Magistrate will grant bail to the petitioners but on the following conditions:

¶33

B.A. No.906 of 2014

¶34

-: 3 :-

¶35

a. The accused shall execute a bond for Rs.50,000/(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate. If in case the Magistrate has any doubt about the genuineness or correctness of the tax receipts produced by the sureties, the learned Magistrate can insist for production of the attested photo copies of the original title deeds of the sureties.

¶36

b. The accused shall make themselves available for interrogation by the Investigating Officer and should appear before the Investigating Officer on all Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays between 9.30 AM to 11.30 AM until further orders.

¶37

c. The accused shall produce their original passports before the learned jurisdictional Magistrate. If they are not having any valid passport, they should file an affidavit regarding the same before the Magistrate.

¶38

d. The accused will also file affidavit that they will abide by all the conditions as mentioned above and that they will not commit any offence similar to the offence involved in this case and will not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the

¶39

B.A. No.906 of 2014

¶40

-: 4 :-

¶41

facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶42

e. The accused shall not leave the State of Kerala without permission of the court.

¶43

f. The learned Magistrate will also ensure the identity of the sureties by insisting production of electoral photo identity cards/Driving licence etc.

¶44

g. In addition to all the above conditions, petitioners shall deposit an amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) each (total Rs.20,000/-) before the learned Magistrate.

¶45

Sd/-

¶46

N.K.BALAKRISHNAN,

JUDGE.

//True Copy//

P.A. To Judge

Jvt

Janeesh Kumar v. the S.I. of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Janeesh Kumar v. the S.I. of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rahul Vs State of Kerala

C.G.Raju @ Pandyan, C.NO.525, Central Prision Kannur Vs State of Kerala

Karattuchalil Noushad Vs State of Kerala

Saji Vs State of Kerala

Suresh Vs State of Kerala

Chithra Vs State of Kerala