Allowed

Jithin Joseph v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC10 Mar 2016Bail Appl./621/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail application, the court addressed the rejection of bail by the Sessions Court regarding charges of affray and assault. The High Court granted pre-arrest bail, noting discrepancies in the prosecution's FIR and statements regarding the use of weapons by the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted subject to appearance before the Investigating Officer within ten days and execution of a bond with two sureties.

Jithin Joseph 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 SUNIL THOMAS

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH 2016/20TH PHALGUNA, 1937

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 621 of 2016

¶6

CRIME NO. 1267/2015 OF NARAKKAL POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/1ST ACCUSED:

¶8

JITHIN JOSEPH, AGED 21 YEARS, S/O.JOSEY, PANIKKANTHARA HOUSE, NEAR PANAKKAPADOM SCHOOL, KARTHEDOM, MALIPPURAM POST, VYPEEN.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.V.N.VASANTH KUMAR

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT:

¶11

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NJARAKKAL POLICE STATION, THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KRALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶12

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.T.Y.LALIZA

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10-03-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

¶15

SUNIL THOMAS, J.

¶16

B.A.No.621 of 2016

¶17

Dated this the 10^th day of March, 2016

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The petitioner herein is the accused in Crime No.1267/2015 of Njarakkal Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 326, 149, 294(b) of IPC.

¶20

According to the prosecution, on 06.12.2015, the accused attacked the de facto complainant along with few other persons. It was alleged that iron pipe and bricks were used to cause bodily injuries. On the basis of the crime registered, the petitioners moved the Sessions Court and the court below granted bail to the 3^rd accused alone and rejected the bail application of the accused nos. 1 and 2.

¶21

The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the bail application of the petitioner herein was rejected by the court below on a premise that the petitioner herein had used an iron rod. The learned counsel took me through the FIS wherein the individual

¶22

B.A.No.621 of 2016

¶23

¶24

overtact of each of the persons is stated. It is alleged that one Sijo hit on the de facto complainant and he fell down, thereafter Sijo and Shaji hit him with bricks. Thereafter, when his son reached the spot, Sijo hit him with an iron rod. The learned counsel contended that even as per the FIS, the use of weapon is attributed to the other accused referred by name.

¶25

On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor referred to a statement given by the de facto complainant wherein he had corrected himself by stating that the iron rod used by Saju was taken by the petitioner herein and hit him with that iron rod. However, it is pertinent to note that with respect to the incident that happened on 06.12.2015, FIS was recorded three days thereafter on 09.12.2015 and in the further statement recorded on the same day, a different version implicating the petitioner herein has been made.

¶26

Having regard to this fact, I feel that the petitioner is entitled for the benefit of pre arrest bail. Hence, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner subject

¶27

B.A.No.621 of 2016

¶28

¶29

to the following conditions:

¶30

(a) Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer within ten days from today and shall undergo interrogation. Thereafter, if he is proposed to be arrested, he shall be released on bail on executing a bond for a sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand only) with two sureties for the like sum each.

¶31

(b) He shall not threaten, coerce or intimidate the de facto complainant or his witnesses.

¶32

(d) He shall appear before the Investigation Officer on all Tuesdays between 9.00 a.m. and 10.00 a.m. for a period of one month from the date of execution of bond.

¶33

The bail application is allowed.

¶34

Sd/- SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE

¶35

¶36

//TRUE COPY//

¶37

P.A. TO JUDGE

Jithin Joseph v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jithin Joseph 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

Sreeni Vs State of Kerala

Abdulla Vs the State of Kerala

Jijo.P.T Vs State of Kerala

Subash Babu Vs State of Kerala

Arun Babu Vs State of Kerala

Vishnu A.T Vs State of Kerala