Allowed

P.U Jose v. Sub Inspector of Police

Kerala HC22 Jun 2016Bail Appl./4495/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application by the 12th accused in a dacoity case involving theft of an Innova car, the High Court allowed bail subject to stringent conditions including district confinement, reporting to the IO, and prohibitions on contacting victims.

What did the court decide?

Petition for bail allowed subject to stringent conditions: reporting to IO, confinement to Wayanad district, no contact with victims, passport surrender, no tampering with evidence, and availability f

P.U Jose Vs Sub Inspector of Police — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JUNE 2016/1ST ASHADHA, 1938

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 4495 of 2016 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 177/2016 OF SULTHAN BATHERY POLICE STATION , WAYANAD DISTRICT

¶7

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

¶8

PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.12 :

¶9

P.U.JOSE, S/O.ULAHANNAN, AGED 48 YEARS, PULPARAYIL HOUSE, DHOTTAPPANKULAM, SULTHAN BATHERY, WYNAD DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.UNNIKRISHNAN.V.ALAPATT

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT/STATE :

¶12

1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SULTHAN BATHERY POLICE STATION.

¶13

2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SULTHAN BATHERY POLICE STATION.

¶14

3. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031

¶15

BY SR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.RASHEED

¶16

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

sts

¶18

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V, J

¶19

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

¶20

B.A. No.4495 of 2016

¶21

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

¶22

Dated this the 22nd day of June, 2016

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

This application for regular Bail is preferred by the 12^th accused in Crime No.177 of 2016 of Sulthan Bathery Police Station. The aforesaid crime has been registered alleging offence punishable under sections

¶25

365 and 395 of the IPC.

¶26

The prosecution allegation is that on 23.2.2016 at 6 p.m. , a group of 13 persons , which

¶27

include the petitioner committed dacoity by taking away an Innova Car of the de facto complainant along with a sum of Rs 35 Lakhs , which was kept inside a secret compartment inside the car.

¶28

I have heard the rival submissions.

¶29

The learned counsel submits that the main

¶30

BA 4495/2016

¶31

¶32

allegations are levelled against the accused No 1 to 8 and the role attributed against the petitioner herein is that he was part of the Criminal Conspiracy and also that he had harboured the principal accused .It is also submitted that most of the accused including the main culprits have already been enlarged on bail by this Court.

¶33

I have heard the learned public prosecutor as well . It is submitted that the petitioner had an active role to play in the commission of the offence.

¶34

Having regard to the fact and circumstances

¶35

and taking note of the specific role of the petitioner , and also the in view of the fact that the other accused have been enlarged on Bail , I am of the view that the petitioner can be enlarged on bail subject to stringent conditions.

¶36

In the result, the petition is allowed subject to the

¶37

BA 4495/2016

¶38

¶39

following conditions:

¶40

(i) (i) The petitioner shall report before the investigating officer in between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m. on all Tuesdays and Saturdays henceforth for a period of six months, or until final report is filed , which ever is earlier.

¶41

(ii) Except for observing condition No.(i) above and for appearing before the court, the petitioner shall not enter the limits of Wayanad District for a period of six months from today.

¶42

(iii) The petitioner shall neither contact any of the victims or their family members nor make any attempt for the same either directly or indirectly.

¶43

(iv) The petitioner shall surrender their passport if any forthwith. If he does not have a passport , he shall file an affidavit to that effect before the concerned court

¶44

(v) The petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence or influence witnesses.

¶45

(vi) The petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation as and when required by the investigating officer.

¶46

(vii) The petitioner shall not involve in any offence while on bail.

¶47

BA 4495/2016

¶48

¶49

In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the concerned Court is empowered to cancel the bail in accordance with the law.

¶50

Sd/RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V. JUDGE

¶51

vps/22.6.2016

¶52

BA 4495/2016 5

¶53

BA 4495/2016 6

P.U Jose v. Sub Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.U Jose 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

Biju Vs State of Kerala

Vishnu Vs State of Kerala

Mahmood Vs State of Kerala

Rahul Vs State of Kerala

Kiran Christepher Vs State of Kerala

Sureshkumar @ Surendran Vs State of Kerala