Allowed

Jose P.P. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC12 Oct 2018Bail Appl./5535/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this anticipatory bail application, the High Court of Kerala granted relief to petitioners without weapons or serious injuries. The court held custodial interrogation unnecessary due to mutual counter-complaints, allowing appearance within ten days and release after on a bond with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed; appearance before IO within ten days; release on Rs. 50,000 bond per accused with two solvent sureties.

Jose P.P. Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2018 / 20TH ASWINA, 1940

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 5535 of 2018

¶6

CRIME NO. 130/2018 OF POOKOTTUMPADAM POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1, 2 & 4:

¶8

1 JOSE P.P., AGED 54 YEARS, S/O.PAUL, PALLIKUNNEL HOUSE, CHERUPUZHA, KARULAI P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶9

2. NASAR P., AGED 51 YEARS, S/O.UMMER, PULATH HOUSE, KARULAI P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶10

3. BIJU K.Y., AGED 43 YEARS, S/O.YOHANNAN, KOORANTHAZHATH PARAMBIL HOUSE, CHERUPUZHA, KARULAI P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶11

BY ADVS.

¶12

SRI.P.SAMSUDIN SRI.JITHIN LUKOSE

¶13

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶14

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

¶15

HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031. (CRIME NO.130/2018 OF POOKKOTTUMPADAM POLICE STATION MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.)

¶16

SRI C N PRABHAKARAN, SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶17

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.10.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

Bail Appl..No. 5535 of 2018

¶19

¶20

ORDER

¶21

This application is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶22

The applicants herein are the accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 in Crime No.130 of 2018 registered at the Pookkottumpadam Police Station under Sections 341, 294(b), 506(i), 323 and 353 r/w. Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶23

According to the prosecution, on 01.07.2018, at 11 a.m., the applicants herein along with the rest of the accused, in furtherance of their common intention, committed trespass into the Nedumkayam Eco-Tourism Forest Area without valid pass and when they were intercepted by the Forest Officers, they abused the Officers and deterred them from discharging their official duties.

¶24

The learned counsel appearing for the applicants submitted that the allegations are untrue. According to the learned counsel, the wife of the 3^rd applicant one Remya Babu, had lodged a complaint before the Pookkattupadam Police on 02.07.2018, wherein, she alleged that on 01.07.2018 at about 7 a.m., while she along with her friends were taking bath in the forest river, the defacto complainant, who was in-charge of the Nedumkayam Forest Station, had violated their privacy. According to the learned counsel, it is in view of the registration of the said crime that frivolous

¶25

Bail Appl..No. 5535 of 2018

¶26

¶27

allegations have now been raised against them. Crime No.131 of 2018 has been registered under against the de facto complainant under Sections 354(C) and 509 of the IPC, is the submission.

¶28

The learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer and submitted that the forest officers were assaulted by the applicant herein.

¶29

I have considered the submissions advanced. The main allegation against the applicants are that they had deterred the forest officers from discharging their official duty. There is no case that the applicants were armed with weapons or that any serious injuries were inflicted. Having regard to the registration of crimes and counter crimes, the severity of accusations and the nature of injuries inflicted, I do not think that the custodial interrogation of the applicants are required in the instant case.

¶30

In the result, this application will stand allowed. The applicants shall appear before the Investigating Officer within ten days from 15.10.2018 and shall undergo interrogation. Thereafter, if they are proposed to be arrested, they shall be released on bail on their executing a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum. The above order shall be subject to the following conditions:

¶31

i) The applicants shall co-operate with the investigation and shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all

¶32

Bail Appl..No. 5535 of 2018

¶33

¶34

Saturdays between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m., for three months or till final report is filed, whichever is earlier.

¶35

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.

¶36

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

¶37

iv) They shall surrender their passports before the court below or if they do not have one, they shall file an affidavit to that effect within five days of their release. Application for release of the passport, if any, shall be considered by the Trial court at the appropriate stage.

¶38

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.

¶39

SD/-

¶40

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶41

JUDGE

¶42

DSV/15/10/18

¶43

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

Jose P.P. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jose P.P. 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

Balachandran C. Vs State of Kerala

Babu Vs the State of Kerala

Biju Vs State of Kerala

Shabeeb Rahman Vs State of Kerala

Geralad Vs State of Kerala

Manoj Vs State of Kerala