Allowed

Binu P Jayan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC25 Jan 2021Bail Appl./226/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala granted anticipatory bail to four accused persons facing charges for rioting, grievous hurt, and arms-related offences. The court considered the applicants' clean record, pending counter-case, and willingness to cooperate in determining the bail grant.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted on execution of bond of Rs. 50,000 each with two sureties, subject to conditions of cooperation and restraint.

Binu P Jayan Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON

¶4

MONDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 5TH MAGHA, 1942

¶5

Bail Appl..No.226 OF 2021

¶6

CRIME NO.2703/2020 OF VALIYAMALA POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶7

PETITIONERS:

¶8

1 BINU P JAYAN AGED 26 YEARS KIZHAKKINKARA PUTHEN VEEDU, MANNOORKONAM.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT 695541

¶9

2 RAHUL RAJ AGED 30 YEARS RAJANI BHAVAN, PERILA, MANNOORKONAM.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶10

3 AKHIL NANDU AGED 25 YEARS NANDU BHAVAN, PERILA, CHULLIMANOOR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶11

4 ANI AGED 34 YEARS SREEBHAVAN, KIZHAKKINKARA VEEDU, MANNOORKONAM.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.R.RAJAN

¶12

RESPONDENTS:

¶13

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA 682031 R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶14

Bail Appl..No.226 OF 2021

OTHER PRESENT:

SMT.V.SREEJA -PP

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

Bail Appl..No.226 OF 2021

¶20

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

Dated this the 25^th day of January 2021

¶23

This Bail Application filed under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code was heard through Video Conference.

¶24

The applicants are accused Nos. 2 to 5 in Crime No. 2703 of 2020 of Valiyamala Police Station, Thiruvanathapuram District for having allegedly committed offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 324, 326 and 506(ii) read with Section 149 of IPC and also under Section 27 of the Arms Act.

¶25

The prosecution case, in brief, is that, on 18.11.2020 at around 6.30 p.m., the applicants were members of an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of the common object of the unlawful assembly, they committed riot armed with deadly weapons like sword,

¶26

Bail Appl..No.226 OF 2021

¶27

¶28

iron rod and reaper and allegedly attacked the de facto complainant and others and wrongfully restrained him and caused simple hurt as well as grievous injury and also intimidated.

¶29

The applicants state that the allegations are not true. The applicants have no criminal antecedents. There was scuffle in which minor injuries were caused and the victim Vinoj, who had allegedly sustained an injury on his head was caused not due to being hit with any weapon, but due to a fall in which is explicit from the FI statement given to the police. Moreover, it is also stated that a counter case has been taken against the de facto complainant and others as crime No. 2704 of 2020 and the same is also pending investigation. The applicants are willing to co-operate with the investigation. Hence the applicants seek pre arrest bail.

¶30

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicants and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶31

The learned Public Prosecutor admits that the

¶32

Bail Appl..No.226 OF 2021

¶33

¶34

applicants have no criminal antecedents. It is also stated that, the reaper and the iron pipe with which the accused Nos. 3 and 4 had attacked and the injured have been recovered from the scene of occurrence. Accused No. 1 has not been arrested and he is the person, who was wielding the sword and the sword is also not recovered. It is true that the allegations that one of the injured who sustained injury on his head had fallen down and hit his head on a stone. The exact nature of the grievous hurt allegedly sustained by the injured is not clear from the records that are produced. In view of the fact that the applicants are willing to co-operate with the investigation and that there is also a counter case registered against the de facto complainant and others. I find that there is no need to decline the anticipatory bail.

¶35

Under such circumstances, the applicants are directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer within two weeks. In the event of their being arrested, after interrogation and recovery, they shall be released on

¶36

Bail Appl..No.226 OF 2021

¶37

¶38

bail on execution of a bond for Rs. 50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each with two solvent sureties for the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer

¶39

and on following conditions:

¶40

(i) They shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when

¶41

called for.

¶42

(ii) They shall not tamper with evidence, intimidate or influence witnesses.

¶43

(iii) They shall not get involved in similar

¶44

offences during the bail period.

¶45

In case of the breach of the bail conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to apply for cancellation of the bail.

¶46

(Sd/-)

¶47

ASHOK MENON JUDGE

¶48

Binu P Jayan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Binu P Jayan 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

Joy Vs State of Kerala

Sakkariya K.T Vs State of Kerala

Muhammed Ali Vs State of Kerala

Jafar Vs State of Kerala

Sreejith Vs State of Kerala

A.K. Khaleel Vs State of Kerala