Allowed

Jayakumar @ Unni v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC22 Aug 2016Bail Appl./4930/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed a pre-arrest bail application filed by six accused persons charged with theft under Section 379 IPC. The court found the investigation practically complete with property recovered and accused arraigned only on co-accused statements. Bail was granted with conditions to report to the IO, restrict movement, and avoid contact with witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners allowed bail on executing bond with two sureties of Rs. 50,000 each, subject to reporting to IO, restricting movement, and no contact with witnesses.

Jayakumar @ Unni Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID

¶4

MONDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF AUGUST 2016/31ST SRAVANA, 1938

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 4930 of 2016

¶6

CRIME NO. 245/2016 OF PERUNAD POLICE STATION , PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NO. 4 TO 9 :

¶8

JAYAKUMAR @ UNNI,

¶9

AGED 42 YEARS, S/O. GOPALAKRISHNA PILLAI, RESIDING AT GOPALA SADANAM HOUSE, MOONNUKALLU, SEETHATHODU, RANNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶10

RAHIM,

¶11

AGED 45 YEARS, S/O. ABDUL RAHMAN, RESIDING AT PUTHENVEEDU, MOONNUKALLU, SEETHATHODU, RANNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶12

SHAJI,

¶13

AGE 40 YEARS, S/O. ABDUL RAHMAN, RESIDING AT PUTHENVEEDU, MOONNUKALLU, SEETHATHODU, RANNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶14

KRISHNANKUTTY, AGED 60 YEARS, S/O. RAMAN, RESIDING AT ANITHA BHAVANAM, MOONNUKALLU, SEETHATHODU, RANNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶15

T.K. SUGATHAN,

¶16

AGED 55 YEARS, S/O. KESAVAN, RESIDING AT THUMBOTHARAYIL HOUSE, MOONNUKALLU, SEETHATHODU, RANNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶17

P.D. BABY, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O. KRISHNADAS, RESIDING AT KALASAKKUZHIYIL HOUSE, MOONNUKALLU, SEETHATHODU, RANNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶18

BY ADV. SRI.MANU RAMACHANDRAN

¶19

..2/-

¶20

..2..

¶21

Bail Appl..No. 4930 of 2016

¶22

RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT :

¶23

THE STATE OF KERALA, THROUGH THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PERUNADU POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA.

¶24

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. REMA.R

¶25

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22-08-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶26

Msd.

¶27

P.UBAID, J. --------------------------------------B.A No.4930 of 2016

¶28

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

¶29

Dated this the 22^nd day of August, 2016

¶30

O R D E R

¶31

The petitioners herein are the accused Nos.4 to

¶32

9 in Crime No.245/2016 of the Perunadu Police Station, registered under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. They seek pre arrest bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the apprehension of arrest by the police.

¶33

The prosecution case is that on 18.2.2016 these petitioners and some others committed theft of three teak tress from one Vrishal Rubber Estate at Perunadu. The accused Nos.1 to 3 were already arrested by the police and they were later released on bail.

¶34

On a perusal of the case diary I find that these petitioners were arraigned as accused in the crime only on the basis of the statements given by the co accused. Admittedly, nothing could be recovered from these petitioners and the police could not collect any other definite material to implicate these petitioners. The stolen property was recovered at the instance of the accused 1 to 3. As regards the value of a

¶35

¶36

B.A No.4930 of 2016

¶37

statement or confession made by a co accused the position stands settled.

¶38

On a perusal of the case diary I find that investigation is practically over except the arrest of these petitioners. When the property already stands recovered, nothing can be collected by the police at the instance of these petitioners under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. In the above factual situation, the petitioners can be granted pre arrest bail. It will suffice that the petitioners are directed to report before the investigating officer periodically for necessary interrogation.

¶39

In the result, this petition for pre arrest bail is allowed. The petitioners are ordered to be released on bail on their executing bond with two solvent sureties for 50,000/-₹ (Rupees fifty thousand only) each to the satisfaction of the arresting officer or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction. Bail is granted on condition that

¶40

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

¶41

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

¶42

¶43

B.A No.4930 of 2016

¶44

c) The petitioners shall not in any manner

¶45

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

Jayakumar @ Unni v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jayakumar @ Unni 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

Aswathy Rajan Vs State of Kerala

Ajinshaw Vs State of Kerala

E.K. Pareeth Vs State of Kerala

Renjith Vs State of Kerala

Yousaf Vs State of Kerala

Shabeer Vs State of Kerala