Allowed

Jayakumar. D v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC11 Feb 2021Bail Appl./429/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a first-time accused charged under IPC sections for theft and trespass regarding rent premises dispute, obtained anticipatory bail citing medical grounds and lack of absconding risk. Court found allegations likely involve false colour forceful eviction.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; petitioner directed to surrender within two weeks; bail granted on bond with two sureties upon arrest after interrogation.

Jayakumar. D 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

THURSDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 22ND MAGHA,1942

¶5

Bail Appl..No.429 OF 2021

¶6

CRIME NO.2316/2020 OF Malayinkeezh Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram

¶7

PETITIONER/S:

¶8

JAYAKUMAR. D AGED 67 YEARS SON OF P.R. DAMU, SREEMAD DWARAKA VEEDU, TEMBLE ROAD, MALAYINKIL, THIRUVANATHAPURAM 695571

¶9

BY ADV. SHRI.SASTHAMANGALAM S. AJITHKUMAR

¶10

RESPONDENT/S:

¶11

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

¶12

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.SANTHOSH PETER SR PP

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

Bail Appl..No.429 OF 2021

¶15

¶16

ORDER

¶17

Dated this the 11th day of February 2021

¶18

This is an application filed under Section 438

¶19

of Cr.P.C seeking anticipatory bail.

¶20

The applicant is the first accused in Crime

¶21

No.2316/2020 of Malayinkeezhu Police Station,

¶22

Thiruvananthapuram, for having allegedly committed offences punishable under Sections 457, 380, 204 r/w Section 34 of the IPC.

¶23

The prosecution case, in brief, is that on

¶24

28.11.2020 at about 7 p.m, the applicant in

¶25

furtherance of common intention with his son,

¶26

daughter and son-in-law trespassed into the rented

¶27

premises in the possession of the de facto

¶28

complainant and committed theft of furniture, computer etc which were stored by the de facto

¶29

complainant. The allegation is that the building

¶30

belongs to the applicant and it was leased out to

¶31

the de facto complainant and he has an absolute

¶32

Bail Appl..No.429 OF 2021

¶33

¶34

possession of the building in which he was conducting a rehabilitation of handicapped

¶35

persons. It was his daughter's marriage and he had

¶36

gone out when the alleged incident took place.

¶37

The applicant states that the allegations are all untrue and that the de facto complainant was engaged in conducting group alcoholic parties in the rented premises and therefore the applicant

¶38

had asked him to vacate the premises. Subsequently, the applicant had approached the police on 03.12.2020 with a complaint alleging that the de facto complainant was misusing the rented premises for anti-social activities. In consequence to that the building was allegedly vacated and possession was handed over to the applicant. After two weeks, the de facto complainant filed a complaint and the FIR was registered on 12.12.2020 without the explanation for the delay. The applicant states that he is a

¶39

¶40

Bail Appl..No.429 OF 2021

¶41

64 year old person having coronary artery disease

¶42

and he is undergoing treatment. His son and daughter are Doctors, his son-in-law is also a Doctor and they had been implicated due to

¶43

vengeance and at the alleged time of occurrence, they were all in the hospital. The applicant is willing to co-operate with the investigation and he seeks pre-arrest bail.

¶44

Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶45

The learned Public Prosecutor submits that in consequence to the complaint filed by the de facto complainant, search was conducted and certain articles which were allegedly stolen was recovered from a scrap dealer and some articles were recovered from the property of the applicant also. It is stated that the tenant de facto

¶46

complainant was awaiting from the station in

¶47

connection with the marriage of her daughter and

¶48

Bail Appl..No.429 OF 2021

¶49

¶50

that is the reason for the delay in filing the

¶51

complaint and therefore the delay is well explained.

¶52

The applicant states that the allegations are untrue and there is no possibility of his

¶53

absconding, he is readily available for

¶54

interrogation and he had himself appeared before the police on 03.12.2020 with a complaint against the de facto complainant and therefore he need not be taken into custody for the reason that he is a patient suffering from coronary disease.

¶55

Considering the entire facts and

¶56

circumstances in this case, I find that the applicant definitely will co-operate with the investigation and come out with an explanation regarding how the applicant is alleged. But it

¶57

does not appear to be a case of pure theft because

¶58

the applicant has no criminal antecedents as far

¶59

as committing offence of theft. The allegations

¶60

Bail Appl..No.429 OF 2021

¶61

¶62

made by the de facto complainant is a forceable eviction of the tenanted premises. The applicant is available for interrogation and he is not

¶63

likely to abscond and he has a permanent place of abode and therefore, I find that he is entitled to a pre-arrest bail.

¶64

Hence, the application is allowed and the

¶65

applicant is directed to surrender before the investigating officer within two weeks. In the event of his arrest, after interrogation, he shall

¶66

be released on bail on execution of a bond for Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties for the like amount each to the satisfaction of the arresting officer and on the following conditions;

¶67

He shall appear before the investigating

¶68

officer as and when called for.

¶69

2.He shall not tamper with evidence, influence or intimidate witnesses.

¶70

Bail Appl..No.429 OF 2021

¶71

3.He shall not get involved in similar offences

¶72

during the bail period.

¶73

In the event of violating the bail conditions,

¶74

the prosecution shall be at liberty to apply for cancellation of bail before the jurisdictional

court.

Sd/-

ASHOK MENON

JUDGE

SPK

Jayakumar. D v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jayakumar. D 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

Nidhin Nath Vs State of Kerala

Anish Antony Vs State of Kerala

Sajeesh T Vs State of Kerala

Krishnanunni Vs State of Kerala

Annamma George @ Sini Vs State of Kerala

Annamma George @ Sini Vs State of Kerala