Dismissed

Jines Francis v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC7 Oct 2016Bail Appl./6964/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala, reviewing a bail application under Section 438 CrPC filed by two accused facing IPC offences including attempted murder and grievous hurt, dismissed the plea. Considering the severity of injuries caused and unrecovered evidence, the court held the application liable to be dismissed but allowed the first petitioner to apply for regular bail upon surrender.

What did the court decide?

Application for anticipatory bail dismissed; liberty granted to first petitioner to surrender and apply for regular bail.

Jines Francis 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 B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/15TH ASWINA, 1938

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 6964 of 2016 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 741/2016 OF KUMILY POLICE STATION, IDUKKI DISTRICT.

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 AND 3:

¶8

JINSE FRANCIS, AGED 28, EARTHU KUNNEL HOUSE, CHAKKUPALLAM P.O., 6TH MILE, KUMILY, IDUKKI DISTRICT.

¶9

¶10

2. PRAVEEN P.S., AGED 32, PUTHEN PARAMBIL HOUSE, CHAKKUPALLAM P.O., 6TH MILE, KUMILY, IDUKKI DISTRICT.

¶11

BY ADVS.SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN, SRI.K.K.AKHIL.

¶12

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶13

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

¶14

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.SAJJU. S.

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

rs.

¶17

B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, J.

¶18

==========================================

¶19

B.A No.6964 of 2016

¶20

==========================================

¶21

Dated this the 7^th day of October, 2016

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 3 in Crime No.741 of 2016 of Kumily Police Station. The offences alleged are offences under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 341, 323, 326, 324 and 307 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶24

The prosecution allegation is that on 14.09.2016 at about 9.30 p.m., while the defacto complainant was travelling in a Maruthi Alto car bearing Registration No.KL-14F-9091 along with his father and others, the petitioners attacked the father of the defacto complainant and others in the car. The father of the defacto complainant was attacked by the first accused with an iron rod causing serious injuries. The third accused caught hold of the father of the defacto complainant at that time. The second accused used a sword to attack Monachan, the relative of the defacto complainant.

¶25

B.A No.6964 of 2016 2

¶26

The petitioners have filed this application under

¶27

Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶28

Heard.

¶29

The learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the

¶30

application. The second petitioner has been already arrested. The first petitioner attacked the father of the defacto complainant with an iron rod, causing fracture of right temporo parietal bones with underlying thin sub dural haemorrhage and right posterior parietal sub arachnoid haemorrhage on him. The recovery is to be effected. Considering the nature and gravity of the allegations raised against the first petitioner, I am not inclined to grant the relief under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in favour of the first petitioner. Since the second petitioner has been already arrested, the application as regards the second petitioner is also liable to be dismissed.

¶31

In the result, this application stands dismissed.

¶32

However, the first petitioner shall be at liberty to surrender before the court concerned and apply for regular bail, if so advised. If the first petitioner surrenders before the court

¶33

B.A No.6964 of 2016 3

¶34

concerned and applies for regular bail after giving copy of the bail application in advance to the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor,

¶35

the learned Magistrate shall consider and dispose of the application for bail, as expeditiously as possible, in accordance

¶36

with law.

¶37

Sd/-

¶38

B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR,

JUDGE

rkj

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

Jines Francis v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jines Francis 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

Sajeev Vs State of Kerala

Sujith Vs State of Kerala

Mohammed Faisal T.T. Vs the State of Kerala

Roy J.Vayalat Vs State of Kerala

Ajayan Vs State of Kerala

Manu Vs State of Kerala