Partly allowed

Shaiju.M.T. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC4 Jul 2017Bail Appl./4397/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala granted pre-arrest bail to two accused persons charged with offences under sections 452, 324, 294(b), and 506 read with section 34 of the IPC. The petitioners were allowed bail subject to strict conditions including periodic appearance before the investigating officer, avoiding trespass, and not committing further offences.

What did the court decide?

Pre-arrest bail granted to the petitioners on the condition that they execute bond with two sureties, appear before the investigating officer on specified days, and not trespass, threaten, or annoy th

Shaiju.M.T. Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF JULY 2017/13TH ASHADHA, 1939

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 4397 of 2017 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 805/2017 OF MATTANCHERRY POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS. 1 & 2:

¶8

SHAIJU. M.T., AGED 32 YEARS, S/O. TOMY, MALIAKKAL HOUSE, NAZARETH, MATTANCHERRY, KOCHI - 682 002, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶9

¶10

2. NAVAS, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O. SIDHIQUE, FAHAD MANZIL, AMBALAPARAMPU, MATTANCHERRY, KOCHI - 682 002, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶11

BY ADVS.SRI.C.ANILKUMAR (KALLESSERIL), SRI.C.Y.VINOD KUMAR, SRI.P.M.MANASH.

¶12

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶13

STATE OF KERALA, (REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MATTANCHERRY POLICE STATION, CR.NO. 805/2017 OF MATTANCHERRY POLICE STATION), REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶14

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AJITH MURALI.

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04-07-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

rs.

¶17

SUNIL THOMAS, J.

¶18

B.A.No.4397 of 2017

¶19

Dated this the 4^th day of July, 2017

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

The petitioners herein are the accused in Crime No.805/2017 of Mattancherry Police Station for offences punishable under sections 452, 324, 294(b) & 506 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶22

It is alleged by the prosecution that, the defacto complainant had warned the petitioners against entering his house after consuming liquor. As a retaliation, on 30.04.2017 at 4 pm, they trespassed into the house of the defacto complainant and hit on the head with a rafter. Thereafter, they escaped leaving behind the rafter. At about 11 am, they again came into the house and abused them. Complaint was laid and crime was registered.

¶23

It appears that the defacto complainant had sustained injuries on his forehead. The conduct of the petitioners herein, as pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor repeatedly trespassing into the house and

¶24

B.A.No.4397 of 2017 2

¶25

inflicting injury, that too, after consuming the alcohol cannot be justified at all. However, such allegation regarding the second entry into the house is not seen referred to in the FIS.

¶26

It appears that the recovery has been effected from the spot. The petitioners are not seen involved in any other crime. Having considered this, I am inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioners herein, however on the strict conditions:

¶27

(i) Petitioners shall appear before the investigating officer within ten days from today and shall undergo interrogation. Thereafter if they are proposed to be arrested, they shall be released on bail on each of the petitioner executing a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/(Rupees fifty thousand only) with two sureties for the like sum each.

¶28

(ii) They shall appear before the investigating officer on all Mondays and Fridays between 9 am and 10 am for a

¶29

B.A.No.4397 of 2017 3

¶30

period of three months from the date of execution of the bond as above.

¶31

(iii) They shall not trespass into the house of the defacto complainant or threatan, intimidate or annoy the defacto complainant, which will be deemed as an essential condition of bail and the breach of it on any occasion may entail cancellation of the bail.

¶32

(iv) They shall not get involved in any other identical offence and the involvement if any, will be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶33

Anticipatory bail application is allowed.

¶34

Sd/- SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE

¶35

R.AV

¶36

//True Copy// PA to Judge

Shaiju.M.T. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaiju.M.T. 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

Saheer Vs State of Kerala

Swamy Himaval Maheswara Badrananda Vs State of Kerala

Mohanan Vs State of Kerala

Shibu P.Jacob Vs Sub Inspector of Police Thrissur East

M.P. Chothy Vs Ajayan

Jyothi Nivas Jyoti Super Bazar Vs Sabur Alikhan