Allowed

Jose Devassia @ Pippiriachan v. Sub Inspector of Police

Kerala HC25 May 2015Bail Appl./269/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court allowed a bail application filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. by an accused charged with sections 294(b), 506(1), and 353 of the IPC. The court found no need for custodial interrogation and granted bail subject to conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail after interrogation. Executing a bond for Rs. 25,000 with two solvent sureties.

Jose Devassia @ Pippiriachan Vs Sub Inspector of Police — Contempt of Court | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.ABRAHAM MATHEW

¶4

MONDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF MAY 2015/4TH JYAISHTA, 1937

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 269 of 2015 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 815/2014 OF PULINKUNNU POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED :

¶8

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

¶9

JOSE DEVASSIA @ PIPPIRIACHAN, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.DEVASSIA, PULINTHARA HOUS, PULINKUNNU, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.UNNI. K.K. (EZHUMATTOOR)

¶11

RESPONDENTS :

¶12

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

¶13

1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PULINKUNNU POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶14

2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA.

¶15

R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. REMA R.

¶16

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25-05-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

B.A. No. 269 of 2015

::1::

K. ABRAHAM MATHEW, J.

¶21

............................................

¶22

B.A. No. 269 of 2015

¶23

...............................................

¶24

Dated this the 25^th day of May, 2015

¶25

O R D E R

¶26

Petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶27

Petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.815 of 2014 of Pulinkunnu Police Station registered for the offences under sections 294(b) 506(1), 353 of IPC.

¶28

The allegation is that he hit on the table of the Village Extension Officer, abused him threatened to cause his death and prevented him from discharging his official duty.

¶29

Heard.

¶30

There is no allegation that the petitioner assaulted the Village

¶31

Extension Officer. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary for effective investigation.

¶32

In the result, this application is allowed.

¶33

The petitioner shall be released on bail after interrogation

¶34

on his executing a bond for Rs. Twenty five thousand only with two solvent sureties each for the like sum if he is arrested by the Police in connection with this case.

¶35

B.A. No. 269 of 2015

¶36

::2::

¶37

He shall appear before the Investigating Officer for

¶38

interrogation if he is so required by him in writing.

¶39

1. He shall not destroy or tamper with evidence.

¶40

1. He shall not harass the defacto complainant or her relatives.

¶41

In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the learned

¶42

Magistrate is empowered to cancel the bail in accordance with the law.

¶43

Sd/-

¶44

K. ABRAHAM MATHEW

JUDGE

DST

//True Copy//

P.A. o Judge

Jose Devassia @ Pippiriachan v. Sub Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jose Devassia @ Pippiriachan v. Sub Inspector of Police

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

Tony Babu Vs State of Kerala

Murphy E.S Vs the SHO

Sundaresan G Vs State of Kerala

Latha Vs State of Kerala

Dileep Vs State of Kerala

Bainu Baby Vs State of Kerala