Dismissed

John Paul v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC28 Nov 2018Bail Appl./2812/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed bail applications of accused parties charged under IPC sections for trespass, assault, and grievous injuries. The court held these were not fit cases for pre-arrest bail due to weapon usage and substantial injuries, but directed surrender of one petition with Parkinson's disease.

What did the court decide?

Bail dismissed; Second petitioner directed to surrender within 10 days for bail consideration post-interrogation.

John Paul Vs State of Kerala — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

¶4

WEDNESDAY,THE 28TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 7TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 2803 of 2018

¶6

CRIME NO. 498/2018 OF Vizhinjam Police Station , Thiruvananthapuram

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED 1, 3 & 4:

¶8

1 HYSANTH LOUIS S/O. DAMAYAL LOUIS, AGED 52 YEARS, SECRET HEART HOUSE, AMBALATHUMMOOLA, CHOVVARA P.O., TRIVANDRUM. 2 SHAHUL HAMEED S/O. ALLAPICHA, AGED 59 YEARS, ARAPPURA PUTHENVEEDU, AMBALATHUMMOOLA, KOTTUKAL VILLAGE, CHOVVARA P.O., TRIVANDRUM. 3 JAHAMGEER S/O. ALLAPICHA, AGED 59 YEARS, ARAPPURA PUTHENVEEDU, AMBALATHUMMOOLA, KOTTUKAL VILLAGE, CHOVVARA P.O., TRIVANDRUM. BY ADVS. SRI.S.RAJEEV SRI.D.FEROZE SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN SRI.V.VINAY

¶9

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶10

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

¶11

2 ADDL.R2 IMPLEADED: RAFEEQ AGED 42 YEARS S/O NAZARUDEEN, MANCHADITHATTU VEEDU, AMBALATHU MOOLA,KOTTUKAL DESOM, KOTTUKAL VILLAGE, VIZHINJAM THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695011. ((ADDL.R2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 16/11/2018 IN CRL.MA.01/2018)

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.N.K.SHYJU

¶13

OTHER PRESENT:

¶14

PP S.SAJJU

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28.11.2018, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..2812/2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

Bail Appl. 2803/2018 ,Bail Appl..2812/2018

¶17

¶18

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶19

PRESENT

¶20

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

¶21

WEDNESDAY,THE 28TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 7TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940

¶22

Bail Appl..No. 2812 of 2018

¶23

CRIME NO. 498/2018 OF Vizhinjam Police Station , Thiruvananthapuram

¶24

PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2:

¶25

JOHN PAUL LOUIS S/O. DAMAYAL LOUIS, AGED 62 YEARS, SECRET HEART HOUSE,AMBALATHUMMOOLA, CHOVVARA P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶26

BY ADVS. SRI.S.RAJEEV SRI.D.FEROZE SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN SRI.V.VINAY

¶27

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶28

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM - 682 031.

¶29

2 ADDL.R2 IMPLEADED; RAFEEQ, AGED 42 YEARS, MANCHADITHATTU VEEDU, AMBALATHUMOOLA, KOTTUKAL DESOM, KOTTUKAL VILLAGE, VIZHINJAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. (ADDL.R2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 16/11/2018 IN CRL.MA.01/2018)

¶30

BY ADV. SRI.N.K.SHYJU

¶31

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28.11.2018, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..2803/2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶32

¶33

Bail Appl. 2803/2018 ,Bail Appl..2812/2018

¶34

COMMON ORDER

¶35

[ Bail Appl. 2803/2018 ,Bail Appl..2812/2018 ]

¶36

In B.A.No.2803/2018, the petitioners are accused nos.1, 3 and

¶37

4 in crime No.498/2018 of Vizhinjam Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 149, 294(b), 323, 324, 506(ii), 308 and 427 of IPC.

¶38

In B.A.No.2812/2018, the petitioner is the 2^nd accused in crime No.498/2018 of Vizhinjam Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 149, 294(b), 323, 324, 506(ii), 308 and 427 of IPC.

¶39

According to the prosecution, on 25.3.2018 at about 12.45 p.m the accused numbering about 6 persons, trespassed into a property and attacked the defacto complainant and others. Four persons sustained injuries. The petitioners apprehending arrest, seek bail.

¶40

It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the property was in dispute and the possession was taken over by the District Collector and vested with the Village Officer as the Receiver. Annexure A3 evidences it. It is stated that some of the persons in possession attempted to make illegal constructions,

¶41

¶42

Bail Appl. 2803/2018 ,Bail Appl..2812/2018

¶43

pursuant to which, Annexure A3 order was passed granting interim orders and also directing the persons to stop the construction. It was stated that, on the date of incident, while the petitioners were doing their regular work, the defacto complainant and others attacked them with weapons. It was contended that, one of the accused, who is the first petitioner sustained injuries, evidenced by Annexure A7. He was taken to the hospital on the same day and seen by the doctor at 2.55 p.m. Relying on these materials, the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that it was an altercation between both sides, in which, some sustained minor injuries. Hence, they are entitled for bail, it was contended.

¶44

Opposing the applications, the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the defacto complainant submitted that it was a case wherein the accused armed with deadly weapons trespassed into the house and inflicted injuries on four persons. It was also contended that substantial injuries were inflicted.

¶45

The learned Public Prosecutor on instruction submitted that, though six persons were initially arrayed as accused, on the basis of the further statement recorded, 14 persons have been arrayed as accused. In the course of investigation, Sections 326 and 307 of IPC were also incorporated. It was further submitted

¶46

¶47

Bail Appl. 2803/2018 ,Bail Appl..2812/2018

¶48

that accused no.11, 14 and 17 have been arrested.

¶49

The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that most of the weapons used have been recovered.

¶50

It appears that all the four persons sustained substantial injuries. Two persons had grievous injuries on their head. According to the prosecution allegation, the first accused used a chopper and the second accused a knife. The 3^rd and 4^th accused allegedly used iron rod. Specific overt acts are attributed to each of the accused.

¶51

Having considered the nature of allegations and the weapon used and the nature of injuries, I am inclined to hold that this is not a fit case granting the benefit of pre-arrest bail. These petitions fail and accordingly dismissed.

¶52

However, in the light of the medical certificate produced by the learned counsel for the petitioners evidencing that the second accused is suffering from Parkinson disease and is under the regular treatment from KIMS hospital, evidenced by a medical certificate dated 6.4.2018 issued by KIMS, Thiruvananthapuram, I am inclined to direct that the second petitioner herein shall surrender before the investigating officer within ten days from today. If he so surrenders, after interrogation, identification and

¶53

Bail Appl. 2803/2018 ,Bail Appl..2812/2018

¶54

¶55

recovery, if any, he shall be produced before the jurisdictional magistrate on the same day of surrender. The court below shall take up the bail application filed by him on the same day of his appearance and pass appropriate orders having regard to the outcome of the interrogation and also the fact that apparently he suffers from Parkinson disease.

Sd/-

SUNIL THOMAS

JUDGE

shg

John Paul v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

John Paul 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

Velayudhan Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Razak Vs State of Kerala

Hayarunnisa Vs State of Kerala

Hysanth Louis Vs State of Kerala

Vinod @ Vinod Kumar Vs the State of Kerala

Shailendranath Vs the Sub Inspector of Police,Enathu