Allowed

Thomas P.J. v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC17 Oct 2018Bail Appl./5347/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed an anticipatory bail application filed by two accused persons charged with offences including intimidation and hurt. The Court held that custodial interrogation was not necessary, granting bail subject to specific conditions including community reporting and non-inducement.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted on a bond of Rs. 50,000/ each with two solvent sureties for the like sum, subject to specific conditions.

Thomas P.J. Vs the State of Kerala — Anticipatory Bail | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

WEDNESDAY,THE 17TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2018 / 25TH ASWINA, 1940

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 5347 of 2018

¶6

CRIME NO. 276/2018 OF CHITTARIKAL POLICE STATION, KASARGOD

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED NOS.1 AND 2:

¶8

1 THOMAS P.J., S/O JOSEPH, AGED 46 YEARS, CHANDHURUTHY HOUSE,KOLICHAL PO, KASARGODE-671532.

¶9

2 LIJO K JOSEPH, KEERANTHADATHIL HOUSE, MANADUKAM, KASARAGODE 671 532.

¶10

BY ADV. SMT.REENA ABRAHAM

¶11

RESPONDENT/STATE/COMPLAINANT:

¶12

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

¶13

2 THE SUB INSPECTOR, CHITTARIKAL POLICE STATION, KASARAKODE DISTRICT 671 326.

¶14

BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI B JAYASURYA.

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.10.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

ORDER

¶17

This application is filed under §438 of the Cr.P.C.

¶18

2. The applicants herein are the accused Nos. 1 and 2 in

¶19

Crime No.276 of 2018 registered at the Chittarikkal Police Station under §§341, 323, 294(b), 506(1), 195(A) r/w §34 of the IPC.

¶20

BA:5347/18

¶21

¶22

The de facto complainant is the prime witness and the victim in C.C.No.160 of 2017 pending on the files of the Grama Nyayalaya, Bheemanadi-Parappa. The applicants herein are the accused in the said case. According to the prosecution, on 09.07.2018 at about 11 am, while the de facto complainant had come to the court premises for giving evidence in the aforesaid case, the accused pulled him out from his car and threatened that if he were to give evidence against them, he would be done away with.

¶23

The learned counsel appearing for the applicants submitted that the allegations are untrue and asserts that the applicants are innocent.

¶24

Heard the learned Public Prosecutor. He has made available the statement of the Sub Inspector of Police, Chittarikal Police Station.

¶25

The prosecution has no case that any injuries were inflicted by the applicants herein. The main allegation is that the applicants herein threatened the de facto complainant with harm. I am of the view that the custodial interrogation of the applicants in the facts and circumstances is not required for an effective investigation.

¶26

BA:5347/18

¶27

¶28

In the result, this application will stand allowed. The applicants 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 their executing a bond for Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty thousand only) each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum. The

¶29

above order shall be subject to the following conditions:

¶30

(i) The applicants shall co-operate with the investigation and shall appear before the Investigating Officer on every Saturdays between 9 A.M and 11 A.M. for a period of two months or till final report is filed whichever is earlier.

¶31

ii) They shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer.

¶32

iii) They shall not commit any similar offence while on bail.

¶33

In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the jurisdictional Court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation, if any, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law.

¶34

SD/-

¶35

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V JUDGE

¶36

Dxy

¶37

//TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE

Thomas P.J. v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thomas P.J. v. the 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

Abdul Najeeb Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Najeeb Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Najeeb Vs State of Kerala

C.P.Prakash Vs State of Kerala

C.P.Prakash Vs State of Kerala

Sujith S. Vs State of Kerala