Partly allowed

Jayesh.P v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC28 Mar 2023Bail Appl./1046/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court disposed of a joint anticipatory bail application filed by four accused. Distinguishing the 2nd accused for using an iron pipe during the assault, the court dismissed his plea. It allowed anticipatory bail for the other three subjects subject to stringent surrender and interrogation conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail allowed for petitioners 1, 3, and 4 on strict conditions; bail plea of petitioner 2 dismissed.

Jayesh.P Vs State of Kerala — Anticipatory Bail | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 7TH CHAITHRA, 1945

¶5

BAIL APPL. NO. 1046 OF 2023

¶6

(CRIME NO.71/2023 OF PAYYANNUR POLICE STATION, KANNUR
DISTRICT)

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 TO 4:

¶8

1JAYESH.P
AGED 41 YEARS
PANAKKACHERI HOUSE THAYINERI,
KAPPAD AMBEDKAR COLONY PAYYANNUR.P.O,
KANNUR DISTRICT., PIN - 670307

¶9

2PRIYESH.P
AGED 39 YEARS
S/O LATE KUNHAMBU, PANAKKACHERI HOUSE THAYINERI,
KAPPAD AMBEDKAR COLONY PAYYANNUR.P.O,
KANNUR DISTRICT.-, PIN - 670307

¶10

3PRAVEEN DAS.P
AGED 30 YEARS
S/O HARIDASAN.M, PANAKKACHERI HOUSE THAYINERI,
KAPPAD AMBEDKAR COLONY PAYYANNUR.P.O, KANNUR
DISTRICT.-, PIN - 670307

¶11

4VIPIN DAS.P
AGED 41 YEARS
S/O LATE VISHWAMBRAN, PANAKKACHERI HOUSE
THAYINERI, KAPPAD AMBEDKAR COLONY PAYYANNUR.P.O,
KANNUR DISTRICT.-, PIN - 670307

¶12

BY ADVS.
P.S.BINU
K.SEENA

¶13

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶14

STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031

¶15

BY ADV PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶16

¶17

BAIL APPL. No. 1046 of 2023

¶18

OTHER PRESENT:

¶19

P G MANU SRPP

¶20

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 28.03.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

¶21

¶22

BAIL APPL. No. 1046 of 2023

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

Dated this the 28^th day of March, 2023

¶25

This is an application for anticipatory bail filed by

¶26

petitioners who are arrayed as accused Nos. 1 to 4 in Crime No. 71/2023 of Payyannur Police Station, Kannur.

¶27

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶28

I have perused the relevant documents placed by the learned Public Prosecutor and the wound certificate pertained to Mr. Pavithran.

¶29

The prosecution case is that, at about 21.45 hours on 17.01.2023, accused Nos. 1 to 4 wrongfully restrained the defacto complainant with intention to cause grievous hurt and then assaulted the defacto complainant. Specific allegation is that, the 1^st accused wrongfully restrained the defacto complainant and 2^nd accused beat on the right shoulder of the defacto complainant by using a iron pipe. The allegation

¶30

¶31

BAIL APPL. No. 1046 of 2023

¶32

against the 3^rd accused is that he slapped on the face and body of the defacto complainant by using his hand and the 4^th accused assisted other accused to commit the said overt acts. Thus the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 341, 323 and 324 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

¶33

The learned counsel for the petitioners read out the overt acts as alleged by the prosecution while pressing for grant of anticipatory bail to all the petitioners/ accused Nos. 1 to 4.

¶34

However, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that, the prosecution has no allegation that, except the petitioner No.2/ 2^nd accused, no other accused used any weapon. He also highlighted the necessity of arrest, custodial interrogation and recovery of the iron pipe at the instance of the 2^nd accused/ 2^nd petitioner to accomplish effective investigation as against the 2^nd petitioner/ 2^nd accused.

¶35

¶36

BAIL APPL. No. 1046 of 2023

¶37

Therefore, while conceding grant of anticipatory bail to other petitioners, the learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail to 2^nd petitioner/ 2^nd accused.

¶38

On scrutiny of available materials, use of iron pipe by the 2^nd accused/ 2^nd petitioner and attack against the defacto complainant on his shoulder bone could be gathered. In the copy of the wound certificate of the defacto complainant, comminuted fracture lateral end of right clavicle was found, apart from, lacerations over scalp and abrasion on chest.

¶39

Therefore, the learned Public Prosecutor is right in zealously opposing grant of anticipatory bail to the 2^nd petitioner/ 2^nd accused. Holding so, I am inclined to dismiss the bail plea at the instance of the 2^nd petitioner/ 2^nd accused, while allowing the same, in sofar as ,the other petitioners are concerned.

¶40

In the result, bail plea of the 2^nd petitioner/ 2^nd accused stands dismissed while allowing the same, in sofar as

¶41

¶42

BAIL APPL. No. 1046 of 2023

¶43

petitioner Nos. 1, 3 and 4 are concerned.

¶44

Accordingly, the petition stands partly allowed and the petitioner Nos. 1, 3 and 4/ accused Nos. 1,3 and 4 enlarged on bail, on the following conditions:

¶45

i. The petitioner Nos. 1, 3 and 4/ accused Nos. 1,3 and 4 shall surrender before the Investigating Officer within ten days from today and on such surrender, the Investigating Officer can question the petitioner Nos. 1, 3 and 4/ accused Nos. 1,3 and 4. In the event of their arrest, the Investigating Officer shall produce the petitioner Nos. 1, 3 and 4/ accused Nos. 1,3 and 4 before the jurisdictional court on the date of arrest itself.

¶46

ii. On such production, the jurisdictional court shall release the petitioner Nos. 1, 3 and 4/ accused Nos. 1,3 and 4 on bail, on executing bond for Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand only) by themselvs and by two solvent sureties, each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court.

¶47

iii. The petitioner Nos. 1, 3 and 4/ accused Nos. 1,3 and 4 shall co-operate with investigation and shall be made available for interrogation and for the purpose of investigation, as and when the Investigating Officer

¶48

BAIL APPL. No. 1046 of 2023

¶49

¶50

directs so.

¶51

iv. The petitioner Nos. 1, 3 and 4/ accused Nos. 1,3 and 4, shall not, intimidate the witnesses or interfere with the investigation in any manner.

¶52

v. The petitioner Nos. 1, 3 and 4/ accused Nos. 1,3 and 4 shall meet the Investigating Officer on all Mondays in between 10.00 am to 1.00 pm for a period of six weeks. vi. The petitioner Nos. 1, 3 and 4 / accused Nos. 1,3 and 4 shall not commit any offence during currency of this bail and any such involvement alone is a reason to cancel the bail hereby granted.

¶53

Sd/A. BADHARUDEEN JUDGE

¶54

mtk

Jayesh.P v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jayesh.P 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nagaraj Kumaran Vs State of Kerala

Harikrishnan.J.P, Vs State of Kerala

V.M. Rajesh, Vs State of Kerala

Arun V.P. Vs State of Kerala

Girijan Vs State of Kerala

Shine.M. Das Vs State of Kerala