Dismissed

Stanly K J v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC16 Aug 2022Bail Appl./2228/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge of Kerala High Court heard an application for anticipatory bail by three accused facing charges under IPC sections 323, 324, 308, and 34 alleging assault with iron rods. The court refused anticipatory bail and directed the petitioners to surrender for interrogation on the same day.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail denied; petitioners directed to surrender and produce before Magistrate on same day.

Stanly K J Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 25TH SRAVANA, 1944

¶5

BAIL APPL. NO. 2228 OF 2022

¶6

(Crime No.126/2022 of Mulavukad Police Station)

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 3:

¶8

1STANLY K J, AGED 60 YEARS
S/O LATE JHON,KALLUVEETIL HOUSE,
VALLARPAADAM P O, MULAVUKAD
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN – 682504.
2ANTONY STANLY, AGED 28 YEARS
S/O. STANLY K J,KALLUVEETIL HOUSE,
VALLARPAADAM P O, MULAVUKAD
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN – 682504.
3MOSES STANLY, AGED 26 YEARS
S/O. STANLY K J,KALLUVEETIL HOUSE,
VALLARPAADAM P O, MULAVUKAD
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN – 682504.
BY ADVS.
D.FEROZE
T.S.KRISHNENDU
C.J.JIYAS

¶9

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE:

¶10

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN – 682031. (CRIME No. 126/2022 OF MULAVUKAD POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT). 2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER MULAVUKAD POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN – 682504. ( (CRIME No. 126/2022 OF MULAVUKAD POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT).

¶11

PP SMT.NIMA JACOB

¶12

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
16.08.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

¶14

BAIL APPL. NO. 2228 OF 2022

¶15

VIJU ABRAHAM, J

¶16

Dated this the 16th day of August, 2022

¶17

This is an application for anticipatory bail.

¶18

The petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 3 in Crime

¶19

No.126/2022 of Mulavukad Police Station, alleging commission of offence punishable under Sections 323, 324 and 308 r/w section 34 IPC.

¶20

The prosecution allegation is that on 22.02.2022 at 09.30 pm the petitioner along with his two sons assaulted the defacto complainant and others nearby the house of the accused persons for the reason that the defacto complainant had questioned the removal of his relatives name from the panel list of employees of the Shobha construction site, Pachaalam and thereby attacked him with iron rods and thus the defacto complainant sustained injury and thereby the accused have committed the aforesaid offences.

¶21

The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the

¶22

¶23

BAIL APPL. NO. 2228 OF 2022

¶24

aforesaid crime. There was a previous dispute between the brother of the defacto complainant and the petitioner with regard to the panel list of employees included in the Shobha Construction work at Pachaalam. Due to the same, the defacto complainant and their henchmen trespassed into the house of the petitioner and damaged the gate of the petitioner and caused loss of Rs 10,000/- and assaulted the wife of the petitioner and thereafter attacked the 1st petitioner with a iron rod and caused serious injuries to the 1 st petitioner. Though a complaint was preferred, crime was not registered.

¶25

The learned Public Prosecutor seriously opposed the application for bail mainly contending that the defacto complainant was brutally attacked by the petitioners and the defacto complainant loss sight of his left eye and the defacto complainant’s children also sustained serious injuries in the alleged incident.

¶26

Taking into consideration the nature of allegations, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. I dispose of the anticipatory bail application with the following directions:

¶27

BAIL APPL. NO. 2228 OF 2022 4

¶28

Petitioners shall surrender before the investigating officer and after interrogation, they shall be produced before the Jurisdictional Magistrate on the very same day and if the petitioners move an application for bail with advance copy to the learned Public Prosecutor, the bail applications shall be considered by the Jurisdictional Magistrate, preferably on the very same day.

¶29

sd/-

¶30

VIJU ABRAHAM, JUDGE

¶31

R.AV

Stanly K J v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Stanly K J 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

Karthikeyan Vs State of Kerala

Ansari Pallickalath Vs State of Kerala

Vaibhav Shetty Vs State of Kerala

Mr.George, Vs the State of Kerala

Nandukumar Vs State of Kerala

Shafi.E Vs State of Kerala