Allowed

Antony Philip v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC3 Jun 2016Bail Appl./2935/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court allowed bail to a petitioner accused in a murder case under Section 302 IPC. The court found that investigation was practically complete despite objections from the prosecution. Bail was granted with conditions including reporting to the IO, not leaving the jurisdiction, avoiding witnesses, and not entering the incident village.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail with bond and two sureties for Rs.50,000/- each subject to conditions to report to IO, not leave jurisdiction, avoid witnesses, and not enter incident village.

Antony Philip Vs State of Kerala — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF JUNE 2016/13TH JYAISHTA, 1938

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 2935 of 2016 () -------------------------------

¶6

CRIME NO. 420/2016 OF PULIKEEZHU POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTITTA DISTRICT

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NO.1:

¶8

ANTONY PHILIP,AGED 52 YEARS, S/O.PHILIP, PUTHENPURAYIL HOUSE, PARUMALA MURI & P.O., KADAPRA VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.N.P.PRAJEESH

¶10

SRI.BIJO THOMAS GEORGE

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT:

¶12

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

¶13

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. C. RASHEED

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

P. UBAID, J.

B.A.No.2935 of 2016

Dated this the 3^rd day of June, 2016

¶19

The petitioner herein is the accused in Crime No.420/2016

¶20

of the Pulikeezh Police Station registered under Sections 323, 506(ii), 324, 326 and 308 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. He seeks regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The application filed by him for regular bail was dismissed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Thiruvalla on 06.04.2016. The petitioner has been in judicial custody since 31.03.2016.

¶21

Crime was initially registered on the allegation that this petitioner and the co-accused assaulted the victim, Francis Broon, and inflicted injuries on his body as part of a criminal design hatched by them to attack him, and to make an attempt on his life. On the basis of materials collected later showing the seriousness of the injuries sustained by Francis Broon, the police proceeded investigation under Section 307 IPC instead of Section 308 IPC. Pending the prosecution, Francis Broon succumbed to

¶22

¶23

B.A.No.2935 of 2016

¶24

the serious head injury sustained by him, on 15.04.2016. At that juncture, the police incorporated Section 302 IPC on the finding that Francis Broon died due to the head injury inflicted by the accused, and the investigation proceeded under Section 302 IPC. This petitioner was arrested on 31.03.2016. The police report shows that the accused Nos.2 and 3 were arrested on 16.04.2016. The accused Nos.2 and 3 are still in custody. On a perusal of the prosecution records including the report submitted by the investigating officer, I find that fatal head injury was inflicted by the 3^rd accused. But the petitioner herein cannot find any excuse, saying that the injury was inflicted by the other accused, because the assault on Francis Broon was a calculated one by the three with the object to make an attempt on his life. However, on a perusal of the case diary, I find that substantial part of investigation is over. The incident happened on 29.03.2016, and the injured succumbed to the alleged injury on 15.04.2016. Copy of the postmortem certificate shows that the cause of death was head injury sustained in the alleged incident. A person who inflicted such an injury on the head definitely have the knowledge of the inevitable consequence, that such an injury

¶25

¶26

B.A.No.2935 of 2016

¶27

will cause death. Let the factual aspects concerning Section 302 IPC be gone into appropriately by the trial court. The weapon of offence used by the 3^rd accused to inflict fatal injury has already been recovered by the police.

¶28

This application for regular bail is opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor on the ground that investigation is still in progress, and that if the accused is now released, he will definitely obstruct the investigation.

¶29

On hearing both sides, and on a perusal of the

¶30

materials including the case diary and the police report, I find that investigation in this case is practically over and that the petitioner can be now released on appropriate conditions. I find that the Investigating Officer has already questioned the material witnesses, and has recovered the weapons. The police has already collected the necessary materials for a prosecution, and I do not find the necessity of continued detention of the petitioner in custody. However, the petitioner will have to be directed to report before the Investigating Officer periodically, to ensure that the remaining part of investigation is not in any manner obstructed. Some other reasonable conditions are also felt

¶31

¶32

B.A.No.2935 of 2016

¶33

necessary in the particular facts and circumstances.

¶34

In the result, this application for bail is allowed. The petitioner will be released on bail on his executing a bond with two solvent sureties for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Thiruvalla. Bail is granted on condition that;

¶35

a. The petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer between 10.00 am to 11 a.m on all Wednesdays for a period of three months.

¶36

b. The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdictional limits of Pulikeezh Police Station for three months.

¶37

c. The petitioner shall not in any manner influence or intimidate the witnesses and he shall not have any contact with the material witnesses directly or over telephone or otherwise.

¶38

d. The petitioner shall not enter the revenue village where the alleged incident took place, till the trial of the case is over, unless otherwise modified by the trial court in due course for sufficient reason.

¶39

Sd/P. UBAID, JUDGE

¶40

sd // True Copy // P.A. to Judge

Antony Philip v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Antony Philip 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

Rajendran Vs State of Kerala

Akhil Vs State of Kerala

Sareena Vs State of Kerala

Viswanathan K. Vs the State of Kerala

A. Shibu Vs State of Kerala

Shaji.a. Vs State of Kerala