Allowed

Johny Abraham v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC4 Jan 2018Bail Appl./8379/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed a bail application for the second accused charged with culpable homicide not amounting to murder and illegal electricity drawing. Balancing the gravity of charges against the petitioner's role and lack of need for custodial interrogation, the court granted pre-arrest bail subject to specific conditions for investigation and cooperation.

What did the court decide?

Pre-arrest bail granted subject to appearance before investigating officer within ten days, cooperation with investigation, and compliance with standard bail conditions, including a bond of Rs.40,000.

Johny Abraham 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

THURSDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF JANUARY 2018 / 14TH POUSHA, 1939

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 8379 of 2017 (CRIME NO.336/2017 OF AMBALAVAYAL POLICE STATION,WAYANAD DISTRICT) -------------

¶6

PETITIONER/ACCUSED

¶7

JOHNY ABRAHAM, S/O.K.C.ABRAHAM, AGED 49,KURUNGATTIL HOUSE, MANDOKARA, POOMALA P.O, WAYANAD DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADV.SRI.ELIAS ZACHARIA

¶9

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶10

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

¶11

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AJITH MURALI

¶12

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04-01-2018,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

sts

¶14

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., J.

¶15

¶16

B.A. No.8379 of 2017

¶17

- - - - Dated this the 4^th day of January, 2018

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

1.This petition is filed under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶20

The petitioner herein is the second accused in Crime No.336 of 2017 of the Ambalavayal Police Station, registered alleging offence punishable under Section 304 of the IPC and under Section 135(1) of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003.

¶21

According to the prosecution, the first accused in the instant case, one Achuthan had taken on lease an item of property belonging to one Geevarghese, for the purpose of cultivation of tapioca. He erected a fence surrounding the said property to protect the same from wild animals. The said fence was electrified and for that purpose, electricity was illegally drawn from the adjacent property of the petitioner. On 04.11.2017, a person residing in the nearby area accidentally came in contact with the fence and he was electrocuted. On 06.11.2017, a crime was initially registered

¶22

B.A. No.8379 of 2017

¶23

: 2 :

¶24

under Section 174 of the Cr.P.C. Later, the role of the accused were revealed and they were roped in.

¶25

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that he has nothing to do with the acts of the first accused. It was without his knowledge and concurrence that the electricity was drawn from the pump installed in his well, which is situated adjacent to the property of the first accused. It was further submitted that the first accused was enlarged on bail by order dated 16.12.2017. Highlighting the minimal role of the petitioner herein, he prays that he granted pre-arrest bail.

¶26

Heard the learned Public Prosecutor as well, who has opposed the prayer. I have considered the submissions advanced.

¶27

6.Having regard to the nature and gravity of the allegations, the role attributed to the petitioner, the materials in support thereof, the character and antecedents of the petitioner, the possibility of the petitioner fleeing from justice and other facts and circumstances, it does not appear that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required in the instant case. I am of the view that the relief of pre-arrest bail can be granted

B.A. No.8379 of 2017

: 3 :

to the petitioner.

In the result, this application is allowed. However, it shall be subject to the following conditions.

¶32

i). The petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer within ten days from today and shall undergo interrogation. Thereafter, if he is proposed to be arrested, he shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.40,000/(Rupees forty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum.

¶33

ii)The petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation and shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Saturdays between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m., for one month or till final report is filed, whichever is earlier.

¶34

iii)The petitioner 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.

¶35

iv)The petitioner shall not commit any similar offence while on bail.

¶36

v) If he surrenders before the court concerned, this order shall not be applicable and the jurisdictional court may pass appropriate orders.

¶37

In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the

¶38

B.A. No.8379 of 2017

¶39

: 4 :

¶40

jurisdictional Court shall be empowered to consider the

¶41

application for cancellation, if any, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law.

¶42

Sd/- RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V. JUDGE

¶43

sm/

Johny Abraham v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Johny Abraham 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

Lalu Sebastian Vs State of Kerala

Babu Vs State of Kerala

Nishad K.H Vs State of Kerala

Siju Vs State of Kerala

P v Suresh Vs State of Kerala

Samraj Vs State of Kerala