Allowed

T.J.Yohannan, v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC13 Sept 2021Bail Appl./6260/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed an anticipatory bail application filed by a 74-year-old second accused in a safeguards case arising from a family dispute. The court considered the petitioner's age, false implication, pending civil litigation, and recovery of weapons while noting the co-accused had already been granted bail.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail subject to bonds, interrogation obligations, non-inducement, and no new offences.

T.J.Yohannan, Vs the State of Kerala — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

BAIL APPL. NO. 6260 OF 2021

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V.

¶6

MONDAY, THE 13^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 22ND BHADRA, 1943

¶7

BAIL APPL. NO. 6260 OF 2021

¶8

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMP 1443/2021 OF DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT, ALAPPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA

¶9

(CRIME NO.603 OF 2021 OF MANNAR POLICE STATION)

¶10

PETITIONER/2nd ACCUSED

¶11

T.J.YOHANNAN, AGED 74 YEARS S/O. JOHN, ARIYANNURKULANGARA HOUSE, KUTTEMPEROOR MURI (P.O.), MANNAR VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT 689 623.

¶12

BY ADVS. RINNY STEPHEN CHAMAPARAMPIL(K/2627/1999) ASHA ELIZABETH MATHEW

¶13

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶14

THE STATE OF KERALA

¶15

REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 682 031.

¶16

OTHER PRESENT:

¶17

SMT. SREEJA.V- SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶18

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

BAIL APPL. NO. 6260 OF 2021

¶20

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Apprehending arrest in connection with Crime No.603 of

¶23

2021 of Mannar police station, Alappuzha District registered for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 326, 341, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, this petitioner who is the second accused has moved this application under 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶24

The prosecution case in brief is as follows:

¶25

The petitioner and his son who is the first accused were entertaining enmity towards the defacto complainant who is none other than their relative. As result of the enmity they have attacked the defacto complainant sharing the common intention to cause injuries to him. On 01.07.2021 at about 7.30 p.m they have wrongfully restrained him, attacked him with weapons and caused injuries including fracture and thereby committed the aforesaid offences.

¶26

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

¶27

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there are civil litigations between the accused and the defacto

¶28

BAIL APPL. NO. 6260 OF 2021

¶29

¶30

complainant and cases are pending before the civil court. In fact this petitioner was attacked by the defacto complainant and he was admitted in the hospital for several days and a case has been registered against the defacto complainant on his complaint as Crime No.605/2021 and the case is under investigation.

¶31

This petitioner who is aged 74 years has absolutely no participation in the alleged incident. But he has been falsely implicated by the defacto complainant who is entertaining enmity towards him. Though the allegations levelled against him are absolutely false and baseless, he apprehends arrest and that is why he is compelled to approach this Court with this petition.

¶32

The learned Public Prosecutor has also submitted that a crime has been registered on the complaint by this petitioner against the defacto complainant and that case is also under investigation along with this case.

¶33

Perused the records

¶34

A perusal of the records produced by the petitioner would

¶35

show that the specific allegation in causing injuries to the defacto complainant is against the first accused. He has already been arrested and released on bail. The investigating agency has also recovered the

¶36

BAIL APPL. NO. 6260 OF 2021

¶37

¶38

weapon used by the petitioner and the first accused in causing injuries on the defacto compliant. But the first accused had already been released on bail and it is also a fact that a case has been registered against the defacto complainant for causing injuries to this petitioner. Of course a perusal of the discharge summary card issued from the hospital where this petitioner has undergone treatment would show that he sustained only minor injuries. The fact that the petitioner is aged 74 years cannot be ignored especially during the pandemic situation. Moreover it is evident from the records that civil disputes are pending between the parties and those cases are pending before the civil court, for adjudication.

¶39

Considering all the facts and circumstances involved in this case as well the fact that the first accused had already been granted bail by this Court, I think that the request made by this petitioner can also be considered favourably. Therefore this petition will stand allowed subject to the following conditions:

¶40

(i) The petitioner shall be released on bail on executing bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum each in the event of arrest by the police in connection with the above crime.

¶41

BAIL APPL. NO. 6260 OF 2021

¶42

¶43

(ii) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation as and when required by him in writing. He shall cooperate with the investigation of the case.

¶44

(iii) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶45

(iv) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail.

¶46

In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the learned Magistrate is empowered to cancel the bail in accordance with the law.

Sd/-

SHIRCY V.

JUDGE

smm

T.J.Yohannan, v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.J.Yohannan, v. the 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

Jithoos Vs State of Kerala

Ahmed Kabeer Vs State of Kerala

Maharoof Vs State of Kerala

Ashokan Vs State of Kerala

Nazim N., Vs State of Kerala

Anilkumar Vs State of Kerala