Allowed

Jopson v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC27 Jul 2016Bail Appl./3959/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an application for pre-arrest bail under Section 438 CrPC. The court held that investigation was practically over, custodial interrogation was unnecessary, and the petitioners could be released on bond with specific reporting and conduct conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners ordered to be released on bail on executing a bond with two solvent sureties for ₹40,000 each subject to reporting to the investigating officer and restrictions on movement and contact wit

Jopson Vs State of Kerala — Anticipatory Bail | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JULY 2016/5TH SRAVANA, 1938

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 3959 of 2016

¶6

CRIME NO. 427/2016 OF KURAVILANGADU POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NO.1 & 2:

¶8

1. JOPSON, AGED 21 YEARS, S/O.JOMON, KULAKKATTU HOUSE, UZHAVOOR KARA, UZHAVOOR VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶9

2. ABRIN STEPHEN, AGED 19 YEARS, S/O.STEPHEN, ANALIL HOUSE, KURICHITHANAM.P.O., KURICHITHANAM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.M.J.SANTHOSH

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT:

¶12

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

¶13

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.LALIZA T.Y.

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27-07-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

¶16

P.UBAID, J. --------------------------------------B.A No.3959 of 2016

¶17

--------------------------------------- Dated this the 27^th day of July, 2016

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

The petitioners herein seek pre arrest bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the apprehension of arrest and custodial harassment in connection with Crime No.427/2016 of the Kuravilangadu Police Station, registered under Sections 294(b), 324, 506(ii) and 308 IPC r/w 34 IPC.

¶20

The prosecution case is that at about 9.15 pm. on 26.3.2016 these petitioners and the other co accused assaulted the defacto complainant and inflicted injuries on his body with a weapon with the knowledge of consequence that such injuries may cause death.

¶21

This application for pre arrest bail is opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor on the ground that investigation is at the preliminary stage, that custodial interrogation of the petitioners is absolutely necessary as part of investigation, and that if the accused are now released, they will definitely obstruct the proper and effective investigation.

¶22

¶23

B.A No.3959 of 2016

¶24

On a perusal of the case diary I find that the complainant had not sustained any serious injury in the alleged incident. What is diagnosed as per the medical records is pneumo thorax. It is not known how the crime happened to be registered under Section 308 IPC. It appears that the police incorporated Section 308 IPC on the basis of some hypothetical statement. Otherwise this is only an instance of assault under Section 324 IPC. On hearing both sides, and on a perusal of the materials I find that investigation in the crime is practically over, and that the petitioners can be granted pre arrest bail. The investigating officer has already questioned the material witnesses. In the nature of the allegations, and also the nature of the materials required for prosecution, I find that custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not necessary in this case. The police has gone a long way with investigation, and has already collected necessary materials. I do not find the necessity of detention of the petitioners in custody for the purpose of investigation in the above circumstances. It will suffice that the petitioners are directed to report before the investigating officer periodically. However, some other conditions are also felt necessary for bail.

¶25

B.A No.3959 of 2016 3

¶26

In the result, this petition for pre arrest bail is allowed. The petitioners are ordered to be released on bail on their executing a bond with two solvent sureties for 40,000/-₹ (Rupees forty thousand only) each to the satisfaction of the arresting officer or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction, in case of their arrest in connection with Crime No.427/2016 of the Kuravilangadu Police Station. Bail is granted on condition that

¶27

a) The petitioners shall report before the investigating officer between 10 am. and 11 am on all Tuesdays for a period of two months.

¶28

b) The petitioners shall not leave the limits of Kuravilangadu Police Station for a period of two months.

¶29

c) The petitioners shall not in any manner influence or intimidate the material witnesses, or they shall not have any contact with the material witnesses directly or over telephone or otherwise.

Sd/P.UBAID JUDGE

//True Copy//

P.A to Judge

Jopson v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jopson 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

Mustakim Muhammed Vs S.I of Police

C.K.Shobhana Vs State Ofkerala

Sarath C.P. Vs the Station House Officer, Kalamassery

K.V. Gopinathan Vs State of Kerala

Raj Mon @ Raju Vs State of Kerala

Shahazad M. Vs State of Kerala