Allowed

K.K.Joy, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC11 Jun 2019Bail Appl./2563/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a bail application (anticipatory in nature) filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for an accused aged 72 years charged with public offence, hurt and attempt to cause hurt. The court granted bail subject to specific conditions and payment of a bond.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted bail on bond of Rs. 35,000/- with two sureties on conditions of reporting to IO and not interfering with witnesses.

K.K.Joy, Vs State of Kerala — Anticipatory Bail | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JUNE 2019 / 21ST JYAISHTA, 1941

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 2563 of 2019

¶6

CRIME NO. 69/2019 OF Vallikunnam Police Station , Alappuzha

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

K.K.JOY, AGED 72 YEARS S/O.KUNJU KUNJU, JIBU BHAVANAM, VALLIKUNNAM VILLAGE, MAVELIKKARA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.VINCENT JOSEPH

¶10

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶11

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

¶12

SMT.V.SREEJA,PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.06.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

-2-

¶15

Bail Appl..No. 2563 of 2019

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.69/2019 of Vallikunnam Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 324 and 308 IPC.

¶18

The petitioner has filed this application under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶19

Heard.

¶20

The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted

¶21

that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent. It appears that the petitioner is aged 72 years. It further appears that in connection with the incident in this case, a counter case was also registered. The weapon used in this case was already recovered from the place of occurrence. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary for the progress of the investigation of the case. That apart, the

¶22

-3-

¶23

Bail Appl..No. 2563 of 2019

¶24

petitioner has no criminal antecedent. In the said circumstances, I am inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner.

¶25

In the result, this application stands allowed and the respondent is directed to release the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in the above said crime, on condition of the petitioner executing a bond for Rs.35,000/- (Rupees Thirty Five Thousand only), with two solvent sureties, each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer concerned, before whom the petitioner shall surrender within ten days, if not arrested in the meantime and subject to the following further conditions:

¶26

The petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer on every Monday between 9.00 am and 11.00 am for three months and thereafter, as and when required by the Investigating Officer for interrogation.

¶27

-4-

¶28

Bail Appl..No. 2563 of 2019

¶29

The petitioner shall not intimidate or influence the witnesses or in any way tamper with the investigation.

¶30

The petitioner shall not get involved in any other offence during the pendency of this case.

¶31

Sd/-

¶32

B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

¶33

JUDGE

¶34

Nkr/11.06.19

K.K.Joy, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.K.Joy, 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

Ummer a.K, Vs State of Kerala

Dr. Nishana Kabeer Vs State of Kerala

Dr.Saban.K.v Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Sanoj K. a. Vs State of Kerala

S.Saji Kumar, Vs State of Kerala

Harikumar N., Vs State of Kerala