Allowed

Jackson v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC2 Mar 2021Bail Appl./533/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC. The court held that custodial interrogation was not essential as the applicant had no criminal antecedents and admitted using no weapon, leading to a grant of pre-arrest bail.

What did the court decide?

The bail application is allowed; surrender before investigating officer within two weeks; release on bail for Rs.50,000 on arrest upon execution of bond and sureties.

Jackson 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

TUESDAY, THE 02ND DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 11TH PHALGUNA, 1942

¶5

Bail Appl..No.533 OF 2021

¶6

CRIME NO.1453/2020 OF Changanassery Police Station, Kottayam

¶7

PETITIONER/S:

¶8

JACKSON AGED 31 YEARS S/O JAMES, MALIYIL, NAKARA PUTHUVAL,PANACHIKKAV P.O,CHENGANASSERY, KOTTAYAM 686101

¶9

BY ADV. SMT.N.S.HASNA MOL

¶10

RESPONDENT/S:

¶11

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, COCHIN 682031

¶12

2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER CHENGANASSERY POLICE STATION, CHENGANASSERY, KOTTAYAM 686101

¶13

R1 AND 2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SANTHOSH PETER, SR PP

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

BA 533/2021

O R D E R

Dated this the 2nd day of March 2021

¶19

This is an application seeking anticipatory bail filed under Section 438 Cr.PC.

¶20

The applicant is the third accused in Crime No. 1453/2020 of Chenganassery Police Station for having allegedly committed offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 341, 294(b), 427 and 308 read with Section 34 IPC IPC.

¶21

The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 15.11.2020 at about 8.15 p.m., the applicant in furtherance of common intention with the rest of the accused, went to the house of the de facto complainant, who is his neighbour, and thereafter wrongfully restrained him and assaulted by means of dangerous weapons like sword and caused simple hurt to him, after hurling abuses at him. Accused 4 and 5 attempted to beat him with an iron rod which could have proved fatal and thus, the applicant attempted to commit culpable homicide.

¶22

The applicant states that the allegations are not true, and in fact, it was the de facto complainant and others, who had attacked the applicant and the other accused and in consequent to that, Crime No.1449/2020 of Chenganassery Police Station has been registered against them for committing offences punishable

¶23

BA 533/2021

¶24

¶25

under Sections 323, 324, 294(b), 308 and 506 read with Section 34 IPC. This is a counterblast. The de facto complainant or others had not sustained any serious injuries. The allegation against the applicant is only that he had kicked them. He has no criminal antecedents also. Hence, he seeks anticipatory bail.

¶26

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

¶27

The learned Public Prosecutor admits that the applicant has no criminal antecedents. It is also admitted that he was not wielding any weapon and he had only kicked the de facto complainant and others. There are a total of five injured in this crime. There is also a counter case with similar allegations against the de facto complainant and others. Under the circumstances, I find that custodial interrogation of the applicant may not be essential. The applicant is entitled to pre-arrest bail.

¶28

In the result, the bail application is allowed. The applicant is directed to surrender before the investigating officer within two weeks. In the event of his being arrested, after interrogation and recovery, if any, he shall be released on bail on the execution of bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the investigating officer, and on the following further conditions:

¶29

(i) He shall appear before the investigating officer as and when called for and co-operate with the investigation. (ii) He shall not tamper with evidence or intimidate or

¶30

BA 533/2021

¶31

¶32

influence the witnesses.

¶33

(iii) He shall not get involved in any similar offence during the currency of the bail.

¶34

In case of breach of any of the above bail conditions, the prosecution is at liberty to approach the jurisdictional court for cancellation of the bail.

Sd/-

ASHOK MENON

JUDGE

Jackson v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jackson 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

Varghese Vs State of Kerala

Shoukkath Vs State of Kerala

Subaidha Vs State of Kerala

Sreejith Vs State of Kerala

Ranjith Balakrishnan Vs State of Kerala

K.G. Sajan Vs State of Kerala