Allowed

Thomas v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC10 Jul 2019Bail Appl./4874/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Kerala allowed an anticipatory bail application filed by four accused persons. The court observed that custodial interrogation was not necessary due to the civil dispute context, proximity of parties, and absence of criminal antecedents, granting bail with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Pre-arrest bail granted on execution of bond for Rs. 35,000 each with two solvent sureties, subject to reporting to IO和监督 conditions.

Thomas Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JULY 2019 / 19TH ASHADHA, 1941

¶5

Bail Appl..No.4874 of 2019

¶6

CRIME NO.144/2019 OF Rajakkad Police Station , Idukki

¶7

PETITIONER/S/ACCUSED:

¶8

1 THOMAS AGED 57 YEARS, S/O. OUSEPH, KARAKKATTU HOUSE, NADUMATTAM, RAJAKUMARI SOUTH POST AND VILLAGE, IDUKKI.

¶9

2 ROSILY, AGED 47 YEARS, W/O. THOMAS, KARAKKATTU HOUSE, NADUMATTAM, RAJAKUMARI SOUTH POST AND VILLAGE, IDUKKI.

¶10

3 ABIN. K. THOMAS AGED 23 YEARS, S/O. THOMAS, KARAKKATTU HOUSE, NADUMATTAM, RAJAKUMARI SOUTH POST AND VILLAGE, IDUKKI.

¶11

4 ANIN. K., AGED 21 YEARS, S/O. THOMAS, KARAKKATTU HOUSE, NADUMATTAM, RAJAKUMARI SOUTH POST AND VILLAGE, IDUKKI.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.S.JIJI

¶13

RESPONDENT/S/STATE:

¶14

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

¶15

SRI.C.S.HRITHWIK,PP

¶16

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.07.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

Bail Appl..No.4874 of 2019

¶18

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

The petitioners are accused in Crime No.144/2019 of

¶21

Rajakkad Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 308, 323, 324 and 326 read with Section 34 IPC.

¶22

The petitioners have filed this application under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶23

Heard.

¶24

The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that

¶25

the petitioners have no criminal antecedent. It has been further submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that a counter case was also registered in connection with the incident in this case. It has been further submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the defacto complainant is the wife of the brother of the first petitioner. The first petitioner

¶26

¶27

Bail Appl..No.4874 of 2019

¶28

is the husband of the second petitioner. He is also the father of petitioner Nos. 3 and 4. The petitioners and the defacto complainant are neighbours and close relatives. A civil dispute is also pending between the parties. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not necessary for the progress of investigation of the case. That apart, the petitioners have no criminal antecedent. In the said circumstances, I am inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioners.

¶29

In the result, this application stands allowed and the respondent is directed to release the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in the above said Crime, on condition of each of the petitioners executing a bond for Rs.35,000/(Rupees Thirty Five Thousand only) each, with two solvent sureties each, each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the

¶30

¶31

Bail Appl..No.4874 of 2019

¶32

Station House Officer concerned, before whom the petitioners shall surrender within ten days, if not arrested in the meantime and subject to the following further conditions:-

¶33

The petitioners shall report before the Investigating Officer on every Saturday between 9.00 a.m. and 11.00 a.m. for two months and thereafter, as and when required by the Investigating Officer for interrogation.

¶34

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

¶35

The petitioners shall co-operate with the investigation.

¶36

Needless to state that if the petitioners get involved in any other offence during the pendency of this case, the

¶37

Bail Appl..No.4874 of 2019

¶38

¶39

court below shall be at liberty to proceed against the petitioners, in accordance with law, without any reference to this Court as held by the Apex Court in P.K.Shaji v. State of

¶40

Kerala [AIR 2006 SC 100].

¶41

Sd/-

¶42

B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

¶43

JUDGE

¶44

RK/10.07.2019

Thomas v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thomas 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

Saju Bin Salim, Vs State of Kerala

Thomas Vs State of Kerala

Vipin Mohan Vs State of Kerala

Subran, S/O. Manikutty Vs State of Kerala

James Vs State of Kerala

Renuka Vs State of Kerala