Allowed

Akhil Jose v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC9 Mar 2021Bail Appl./882/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala granted anticipatory bail to four accused persons facing charges of riot, grievous hurt, and other offences. The court noted they lacked criminal records and were implicated primarily through association rather than specific overt acts, directing surrender within two weeks and imposing surety conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted; directed to surrender within two weeks; released on bond of Rs. 50,000 with two solvent sureties each if arrested; standard conditions imposed.

Akhil Jose Vs State of Kerala — Quashing and FIR | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 18TH PHALGUNA, 1942

¶5

Bail Appl.No.882 OF 2021

¶6

CRIME NO.1301/2020 OF Kunnathunadu Police Station , Ernakulam

¶7

PETITIONER/S:

¶8

1 AKHIL JOSE, AGED 23 YEARS PAREKKUDI HOUSE IRAPPURAM P.O, KUZHOOR ERNAKULAM DISTRICT – 683541.

¶9

2 ALBIN P ELDHOSE AGED 22 YEARS, PAREKKUDI HOUSE , IRAPPURAM P.O KUZHOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT – 683541.

¶10

3 ALJIN P ELDHOSE AGED 20 YEARS, PAREKKUDI HOUSE IRAPPURAM P.O KUZHOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT – 683541.

¶11

4 ELDHOSE K SUNNY AGED 21 YEARS KUZHICHALIL HOUSE IRAPPURAM P.O KUZHOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT – 683541.

¶12

BY ADVS. SRI.K.S.ARUN KUMAR SRI.JUSTINE JACOB SMT.AMRUTHA P S SHRI.VIJAY SANKAR V.H. SRI.M.S.DILEEP SMT.AMRUTHA K P

¶13

Bail Appl.No.882 OF 2021

¶14

¶15

RESPONDENT/S:

¶16

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

¶17

R1 BY SMT.V.SREEJA-PP

¶18

OTHER PRESENT:

¶19

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

Bail Appl.No.882 OF 2021

¶21

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

Dated this the 9th day of March 2021

¶24

This is an application for anticipatory bail under

¶25

Section 438 of Cr.P.C.

¶26

The applicants are accused 5 to 8 in Crime

¶27

No.1301/2020 of Kunnathunad Police Station for having allegedly committed the offences punishable under

¶28

Sections 143, 147, 148, 324, 323, 506 and 326 read with

¶29

Section 149 of the I.P.C.

¶30

The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 25.12.2020 between 7.30 and 8.30 PM, the applicants

¶31

formed an unlawful assembly with the remaining accused and in the prosecution of the common object of the said

¶32

unlawful assembly, they committed riot armed with

¶33

weapons like an iron rod, intimidated the de facto

¶34

complainant and assaulted him causing grievous hurt to

¶35

him by fracturing his right hand and thus committed the

¶36

offence. Accused 1 to 4 have already been granted

¶37

¶38

Bail Appl.No.882 OF 2021

¶39

bail. The applicants’ name did not figure in the original F.I.R., but they have been subsequently added in the array as those identifiable persons, who were members of the unlawful assembly together with accused 1 to 4. They do not have any criminal antecedents, and hence, they seek pre-arrest bail.

¶40

Heard the learned Counsel for the applicants and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶41

Admittedly, the applicants do not have any

¶42

criminal antecedents. Nothing is to be recovered from them as it is accused 1 to 4, who attacked the de facto complainant with the iron rod. No specific overt act is attributed to the applicants.

¶43

In the result, the bail application is allowed and

¶44

the applicants are directed to surrender before the investigating officer within two weeks. In the event of arrest, after interrogation, the applicants shall be

¶45

released on bail on the execution of a bond for

¶46

Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) each, with two

¶47

¶48

Bail Appl.No.882 OF 2021

¶49

solvent sureties for the like amount each, to the satisfaction of the investigating officer, and on the following conditions:

¶50

(i) They shall not influence or intimidate witnesses or tamper with evidence;

¶51

(ii) They shall appear before the investigating officer as and when called for and shall cooperate with the investigation; and

¶52

(iii)During the bail period, they shall not get involved in any similar offences.

¶53

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

court.

Sd/-

ASHOK MENON

JUDGE

dkr

Akhil Jose v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akhil Jose 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

Chellappan Vs State of Kerala

Shameer Muhammed Vs State of Kerala

Gopan Suresh Vs State of Kerala

Roy George Vs State of Kerala

Anoop @ Suruma Vs State of Kerala

Navas Vs State of Kerala