Allowed

Jaison @ Jobish P.Joy v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC15 Jul 2021Bail Appl./3723/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner accused of mischief, hurt, and criminal intimidation. The Court held that custodial interrogation was not necessary as weapons and vehicles had already been seized. Bail was granted subject to conditions including surrender, cooperation, and execution of a bond.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted bail on personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties; required to surrender within ten days for interrogation.

Jaison @ Jobish P.Joy Vs State of Kerala — Cheating and Forgery | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARIPAL

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 15^TH DAY OF JULY 2021 / 24TH ASHADHA, 1943 BAIL APPL. NO. 3723 OF 2021

¶5

CRIME NO. 636/2021 OF KOTHAMANGALAM POLICE STATION, ERNAKUALM PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶6

JAISON @ JOBISH P.JOY AGED 39 YEARS PULPRAYIL, VETTILAPARA COLONY, KEERAMPARA, KOTHAMANGALAM, PIN – 686681

¶7

BY ADV. PEEYUS A.KOTTAM

¶8

RESPONDENT:

¶9

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM, PIN – 682031

¶10

BY SRI. SANTHOSH PETER, SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶11

SSION ON 15.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶12

Bail Appl.No.3723 OF 2021 2

¶13

ORDER

¶14

This is an application filed under Section 438 of the Code

¶15

of Criminal Procedure, by the first accused in Crime No. 636/2021 of Kothamangalam Police Station. The petitioner and another face allegations under Sections 294(b), 324, 326, 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶16

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he had reached the place of occurrence on being alerted by the second accused, his friend, that the defacto complainant and others had surrounded him; on getting knowledge about it, he reached the place and skirmish followed; in the skirmish the defacto complainant fell down and sustained injuries on his shoulder. He has not suffered any serious injuries. There was no premeditation on his part; in fact the defacto complainant and his gang were attacking himself and his friend. He is prepared to cooperate with the investigation, that custodial interrogation is not necessary.

¶17

I heard the learned Public Prosecutor also. Also

¶18

summoned and perused the case dairy.

¶19

Bail Appl.No.3723 OF 2021 3

¶20

The crime was registered on the strength of the First Information Statement given by one Mahesh, who is working as Confidential Assistant in Vigilance Office, Idukki. That day, himself and his friends were returning after visiting Boothathankettu. On the way, a motor bike hit behind their car, but its rider rode away; they chased the bike and intercepted him, then the bike rider telephoned and called another person and both of them attacked and injured him. The person who reached there in the autorickshaw took a spade and hit him with the spade and caused him injuries.

¶21

The wound certificate indicates that the defacto complainant had suffered a fracture on the left wrist.

¶22

The second accused has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court. Perusal of the case dairy indicates that the spade as well as the helmet allegedly used by the assailants for attacking and injuring the defacto complainant besides the autorickshaw and the motor cycle have already been seized by the police.

¶23

In the nature of such allegations, custodial interrogation is warranted only for the purpose of seizing the

¶24

Bail Appl.No.3723 OF 2021 4

¶25

material objects and weapon of offence. The vehicles and the weapons have already been seized; the petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents. In the circumstances, his custodial interrogation cannot be insisted upon.

¶26

The petitioner shall be at liberty to surrender before the Investigating Officer within ten days from today and will make himself available for interrogation; in the event of arrest, he shall be released on bail on executing bond for Rs.50,000/(Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer; he shall co-operate with the investigation; shall not try to contact or influence the witnesses or tamper with the evidence and shall not

¶27

involve in any crime during the period on bail.

¶28

The bail application is allowed as above.

¶29

K.HARIPAL

¶30

JUDGE

¶31

DCS/14.07.2021

Jaison @ Jobish P.Joy v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jaison @ Jobish P.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

Binu Vs State of Kerala

Sudheesh C.N Vs State of Kerala

Jouhar C.K.V Vs State of Kerala

Muhammad Althaf Vs State of Kerala

Sonu P Vs State of Kerala

A. Balasubramanian Vs State of Kerala