Allowed

Joseph P.J v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC4 Apr 2017Bail Appl./1994/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala granted anticipatory bail to four accused persons in a case involving assault causing bodily harm. The court was satisfied based on procedural irregularities in the FIR and investigation, particularly the delayed addition of names in statements.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; petitioners released on bail by execution of a bond of Rs.50,000 each with two solvent sureties subject to specific conditions.

Joseph P.J Vs State of Kerala — Anticipatory Bail | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.ABRAHAM MATHEW

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL 2017/14TH CHAITHRA, 1939

¶5

Bail Appl.No. 1994 of 2017

¶6

CRIME NO. 40/2014 OF MANNANCHERRY POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NOS:

¶8

1. JOSEPH P.J., AGED 29 YEARS, S/O.JOY, VALLIKATHAYIL, THUMPOLY WARD, ALAPPUZHA

¶9

2. UNNI RAJEEV, AGED 29 YEARS, S/O.RAJEEV, VELIYIL HOUSE, KOMMADY WARD, ALAPPUZHA

¶10

3. JINU JOSE, AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.P.M.JOSE, PANACHITHARA, THUMPOLY WARD, ALAPPUZHA

¶11

4. JOY V.J., AGED 41 YEARS, S/O.GEORGE, VALIYA VEEDU, THUMPOLY WARD, ALAPPUZHA.

¶12

BY ADVS.SRI.C.S.MANU SRI.S.K.PREMRAJ

¶13

RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT & THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER::

¶14

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN: 682 031.

¶15

2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MANNANCHERY POLICE STATION, POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT - 688 538.

¶16

3. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, ALAPPUZHA - 688 001.

¶17

(NOTICE TO WHOM MAY BE SERVED ON THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-682 031.

¶18

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.SAJJU S.

¶19

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04-04-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

msv/

¶21

K.ABRAHAM MATHEW, J.

¶22

B.A.No.1994 of 2017

¶23

Dated this the 4^th day of April, 2017

¶24

ORDER

¶25

Petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶26

Petitioners are accused Nos.5 to 8 in Crime No.40 of 2014 of Mannancherry Police Station registered for the offences under Sections 201, 323, 324, 326, 341 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶27

The prosecution case is that the petitioners along with the co-accused assaulted the victim with deadly weapons causing him injuries including fracture of bones and dislocation of the right shoulder joint.

¶28

The learned counsel submits that the petitioners are not involved in the incident.

¶29

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶30

The incident happened at 12.15 in the morning on 19.1.2014. The police registered a case on the basis of the information given by the victim on 21.1.2014. He mentioned names of four persons as his assailants. The case was transferred to Alappuzha North Police Station where it was re-registered as Crime

¶31

No.147 of 2014. Later, it was transferred back to Mannancherry

¶32

B.A.No.1994 of 2017

¶33

¶34

Police Station. The police filed final report before the Chief Judicial Magistrate where it was taken on the file as C.C.No.551 of 2015. In the final report there were only two accused, one of whom was not even shown as an accused in the F.I.R. In the further investigation of the District Crime Branch Police, Alappuzha, it was revealed that the petitioners are also involved in the case. It is on the basis of a statement given by the victim under Section 161 Cr.P.C., they have been made accused.

¶35

In the F.I.Statement given by the victim only four persons were named as assailants. None of the petitioners name found a place in the F.I.Statement. But in the further statement recorded after a few years the names of the petitioners also have been mentioned. This is a very suspicious circumstance. Having regard

¶36

to all the facts mentioned above, I am of the opinion that the petitioners are entitled to anticipatory bail.

¶37

In the result, this application is allowed.

¶38

i. The petitioners shall be released on bail after interrogation on their executing a bond for Rs.50,000/(Rupees fifty thousand only) each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum if they are arrested by the Investigating Officer in connection with this case.

¶39

B.A.No.1994 of 2017

¶40

¶41

ii. They shall appear before the Investigating Officer on the 7^th and 14^th days of their release and thereafter as and when the Investigating Officer required them to appear.

¶42

iii. They shall surrender their passports before the lower court concerned or if they do not have one they shall file an affidavit to that effect within five days of their release.

¶43

iv. They shall not get themselves involved in any other criminal case while they are on bail.

¶44

v. They shall not intimidate or attempt to influence the witnesses.

¶45

vi. They shall not destroy or tamper with evidence.

¶46

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

¶47

Sd/-

¶48

K.ABRAHAM MATHEW, JUDGE

¶49

¶50

/True copy/

¶51

P.A. to Judge

Joseph P.J v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Joseph P.J 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

Santhosh Vs State of Kerala

Shahul Hameed Vs the S.I. of Police

Rajesh Vs State of Kerala

Geevarghese.M.D Vs State of Kerala

Febin Lal R.K Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Dennis Vs Sub Inspector of Police