Allowed

Sabu T S v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC3 Mar 2022Bail Appl./682/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an anticipatory bail application under CrPC, the High Court of Kerala granted bail to three accused persons facing charges of criminal trespass, assault, and mischief. The court ordered release subject to execution of bonds with sureties, cooperation with investigation, and non-interference with witnesses.

What did the court decide?

The bail applications of the three petitioners were allowed; they shall be released on bail subject to execution of bonds with sureties and conditions regarding cooperation with investigation and non-

Sabu T S 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 GOPINATH P.

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 3^RD DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 12TH PHALGUNA, 1943

¶5

BAIL APPL. NO. 682 OF 2022 CRIME NO.925 OF 2021 OF MANNAR POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT

¶6

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:

¶7

1 SABU T S, AGED 43 YEARS, SON OF SAMUEL KUTTY, THOTTUNILATH HEAVENS VILLA, PAVUKKARA MURI, KURATTISSERY VILLAGE, CHENGANNUR, PIN – 689 622. 2 JIBU THOMAS, AGED 33 YEARS, SON OF T.K. THOMAS, MANAMPADAVIL HOUSE, PAVUKKARA MURI, KURATTISSERY VILLAGE, CHENGANNUR, PIN – 689 622. 3 ABY MATHEW (ALIAS) SOW AGED 40 YEARS SON OF THANKACHAN, MANAMPADAVIL HOUSE, PAVUKKARA MURI, KURATTISSERY VILLAGE, CHENGANNUR, PIN – 689 622. BY ADV N.ASHOK KUMAR

¶8

RESPONDENT:

¶9

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN – 682 031. SRI. NOUSHAD K.A. (SR.PP)

¶10

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶11

BAIL APPL. NO. 682 OF 2022

¶12

¶13

ORDER

¶14

This is an application for anticipatory bail.

¶15

Petitioners are the accused Nos.1 to 3 in Crime No.925 of 2021 of Mannar Police Station, Alappuzha District, alleging commission of offences under Sections 447, 294(b), 341, 323, 452, 506 and 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegation against the petitioners is that on 25.12.2021 at about 05.45PM, the petitioners trespassed into the house of the de-facto complainant and attacked the de-facto complainant and his family members. It is also alleged that the 2^nd accused assaulted the mother of the de-facto complainant and also pushed the six year old daughter of the de-facto complainant. It is alleged that a staff of the de-facto complainant Binu(alias)Florence was also attacked by the petitioners.

¶16

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the allegations are completely false. It is submitted that de-facto complainant, his wife Smitha Linu and their friend named Binu Florence destroyed the agriculture farm of the 3^rd accused / 3^rd petitioner and on questioning the same,

¶17

BAIL APPL. NO. 682 OF 2022

¶18

¶19

they had attacked the 3^rd accused using a cycle pump and a sword stick. It is submitted that on the basis of the complaint given by the 3^rd petitioner, Crime No.19 of 2022 of Mannar Police Station has been registered against the de-facto complainant and others. It is submitted that the petitioners and the de-facto complainant are neighbours and the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the matter.

¶20

The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the grant of bail. It is submitted that serious injuries were occasioned to the de-facto complainant owing to the attack by the petitioners. It is submitted that going by the information given by the de-facto complainant, the petitioners had attacked him with an iron rod and had also assaulted his wife, his minor daughter and also a staff of the de-facto complainant. It is submitted that since the injuries are serious, the petitioners are not entitled to anticipatory bail.

¶21

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the fact that no criminal antecedents are reported against the petitioners. In so far as the 1^st petitioner is concerned, the allegation is that he had dropped the petitioners

¶22

¶23

BAIL APPL. NO. 682 OF 2022

¶24

2 and 3 at the house of the de-facto complainant. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the petitioners can be granted anticipatory bail subject to conditions.

¶25

In the result, this bail application is allowed and it is directed that the petitioners shall be released on bail, in the event of their arrest in connection with Crime No.925 of 2021 of Mannar Police Station, Alappuzha District, subject to the following conditions:

¶26

(i)Petitioners shall execute separate bonds for sums of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Jurisdictional Court;

¶27

(ii) Petitioners shall co-operate with the investigation and shall report before the investigating officer in Crime No.925 of 2021 of Mannar Police Station, Alappuzha District, whenever called upon to do so; (iii) Petitioners shall not attempt to interfere with the investigation or to influence or intimidate the de-facto complainant o r any witness in Crime No.925 of 2021 of Mannar Police Station, Alappuzha District;

¶28

BAIL APPL. NO. 682 OF 2022

¶29

¶30

(iv) Petitioners shall not involve in any other crime while on bail.

¶31

If any of the aforesaid conditions are violated, the investigating officer in Crime No.925 of 2021 of Mannar Police Station, Alappuzha District, may file an application before the

¶32

Jurisdictional Court, for cancellation of bail.

¶33

Sd/- GOPINATH P. JUDGE

¶34

Sabu T S v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sabu T S 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Primoose Antony Vs State of Kerala

Shiju.T Vs State of Kerala

Noushad P.T. Vs the State of Kerala

Sibi Joy Vs State of Kerala

Satheesh Vs State of Kerala

Navas v. Basheer Vs State of Kerala