Allowed

P.J.Ancily, Son of Joseph v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC6 Mar 2018Bail Appl./884/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala granted anticipatory bail to two accused persons in a criminal trial involving alleged criminal trespass, robbery, and damage to public property, subject to conditions including monetary deposit and appearance obligations.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for anticipatory bail to petitioners 5 and 8 allowed subject to depositing Rs. 10,000 each and complying with bond conditions.

P.J.Ancily, Son of Joseph Vs State of Kerala — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. NARAYANA PISHARADI

¶3

TUESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH 2018 / 15TH PHALGUNA, 1939

¶4

Bail Appl..No. 884 of 2018

¶5

(CRIME NO. 176/2018 OF MULAVUKAD POLICE STATION , ERNAKULAM)

¶6

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:

¶7

1 P.J.ANCILY, SON OF JOSEPH PADAMATTUMMAL HOUSE, PALLIPORT, MUNAMBAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶8

2 SUNIL C.D SON OF DEVASSY, CHOUTHAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, PALLIPORT, MUNAMBAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶9

3 E.K.DILEEP, SON OF KRISHNAN, EZHIKANATTU HOUSE, PALLIPORT, MUNAMBAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶10

4 A.J.ANTONY SON OF JOSEPH, ARAYANCHERI HOUSE, PALLIPORT, MUNAMBAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶11

5 EASY, SON OF ROCKY, ASHARIPARAMBIL HOUSE, PALLIPORT, MUNAMBAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶12

6 VINOD JOSEPH SON OF JOSEPH, PANAKKAL HOUSE, PALLIPORT, MUNAMBAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶13

7 TONY T.R SON OF ROCKY, THEARATH HOUSE, PALLIPORT, MUNAMBAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶14

8 V.V.ANIL SON OF VINOD, VALIYAPURACKAL HOUSE, PALLIPORT, MUNAMBAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶15

BY ADVS.SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR (SR.) SRI.T.RAMPRASAD UNNI SRI.S.M.PRASANTH SRI.G.RENJITH SMT.R.S.ASWINI SANKAR SRI.T.H.ARAVIND

¶16

RESPONDENT(S)/STATE & COMPLAINANT:

¶17

1. STATE OF KERALA

¶18

REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

¶19

HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM,

¶20

KOCHI - 682 031.

¶21

2. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER MULAVUKADU POLICE STATION, MULAVUKADU, ERNAKULAM - 682 504.

¶22

R BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. REKHA C. NAIR

¶23

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06-03-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

R. NARAYANA PISHARADI, J.

¶25

B.A. No. 884 of 2018

¶26

Dated this the 6^th day of March, 2018

¶27

ORDER

¶28

This is an application for anticipatory bail filed under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.

¶29

When the application is taken up for hearing, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that all petitioners except petitioners 5 and 8 had surrendered before the court concerned and subsequently, they have been granted regular bail by the Court of Session, Ernakulam. Therefore, no question of granting anticipatory bail to the petitioners, other than petitioners 5 and 8, arises now.

¶30

Petitioners 5 and 8 are accused Nos.12 and 13 in

¶31

the case registered as Crime No.176/2018 of the Mulavukadu Police Station under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 294 (b), 506, 332, 452 and 395 r/w Section 149 IPC and also under Section 3 (1) of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984. The prosecution case is that on 3.2.2018, at about

¶32

B.A. No. 884 of 2018

¶33

-2-

¶34

04.30 hours, the accused together, along with 50 other persons, criminally trespassed into the office of the Fisheries Station at Vypin and that they wrongfully restrained and beat the de facto complainant with their hands. It is further alleged that the accused caused damage to the furniture and other items in the office and caused a loss of Rs.1,72,500/- to the Government. It is also alleged that the accused caused obstruction to the discharge of the official duties of the de facto complainant and that they committed robbery of two fishing boats which had been seized and kept by the officials.

¶35

Heard the learned Senior Counsel who appeared for

¶36

the petitioners and also the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the report filed by the Investigating Officer.

¶37

The learned Senior Counsel who appeared for the petitioners has produced a copy of the order dated 21.2.2018 passed by the Court of Session, Ernakulam in Crl.M.C.No.346 of 2018. This order shows that the accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 to 11 had been arrested and they were in judicial custody and they were granted regular bail by that Court. It is revealed from this order that the recovery of the boats allegedly robbed

¶38

B.A. No. 884 of 2018

¶39

-3-

¶40

by the accused have been effected. Considering these aspects, I find that custodial interrogation of petitioners 5 and 8 is not necessary to have an effective investigation in the case. However, the court has to take note of the fact that there is allegation against the accused that they caused damaged to the furniture in the Fisheries Station causing a loss of Rs.1,72,500/- to the Government. The offence under Section 3 (1) of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act is alleged against the petitioners. Therefore, in the light of the decision of this Court in Satheesh Kumar v. Malabar Devaswom Board (2011 (4) KHC 689) , it is necessary to direct the petitioners to deposit in the court a portion of the amount of loss alleged to have been caused to the Government, as a condition of granting pre-arrest bail.

¶41

In the result, the prayer for granting anticipatory bail to petitioners 5 and 8 is allowed and it is ordered as follows:

¶42

(i) The petitioners 5 and 8 shall be released on bail on executing a bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) each with two sureties each for the like amount in the event of their arrest by the police in Crime No.176 of 2018 of the

¶43

B.A. No. 884 of 2018

¶44

-4-

¶45

Mulavukadu Police Station.

¶46

(ii) The petitioners 5 and 8 shall appear before the investigating officer on every Saturday between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m. till final report is filed in the case.

¶47

(iii) The petitioners 5 and 8 shall not in any manner intimidate or influence the prosecution witnesses in the case.

¶48

(iv) The petitioners 5 and 8 shall not leave Ernakulam District without the prior permission of the jurisdictional court concerned till final report is filed in the case.

¶49

(v) The petitioners 5 and 8 shall appear before the investigating officer as and when required by him in writing to do so.

¶50

(vi) The petitioners 5 and 8 shall deposit an amount of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) each in the Magistrate's Court concerned within three days of their release on bail.

¶51

(vii) If petitioners 5 and 8 fail to deposit the amount in the Magistrate's Court concerned as directed above, bail granted to them as per this order shall stand cancelled without any further orders from this Court.

¶52

R. NARAYANA PISHARADI JUDGE

¶53

Scl/06.03.2018

P.J.Ancily, Son of Joseph v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.J.Ancily, Son of Joseph 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

V.P.Hisham Vs State of Kerala

Faleel v. Vs Sho, Kannur Town Police Station

Thomas @ Tomy Vs State of Kerala

Biju Vs State of Kerala

Sujin Vs State of Kerala

Aseer A.P Vs State of Kerala