Dismissed

Tijo John v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC10 Mar 2023Bail Appl./775/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam dismissed an anticipatory bail application by the sole accused in a case involving assault and intimidation. The court held that medical evidence confirming a fracture justified arrest, custodial interrogation, and recovery of a weapon.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail application dismissed; petitioner permitted to surrender voluntarily to Investigating Officer.

Tijo John Vs State of Kerala — Cheating and Forgery | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN FRIDAY, THE 10^TH DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 19TH PHALGUNA, 1944 BAIL APPL. NO. 775 OF 2023

¶4

PETITIONER/S:

¶5

TIJO JOHN AGED 35 YEARS S/O. JOHN, THEVARUKUNNEL HOUSE, KANAKAKKUNNU, VATHIKUDY, MARIGIRI P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685515

¶6

BY ADVS. K.R.PRATHISH S.UNNIKRISHNAN (NELLAD) P.K.SREEVALSAKRISHNAN

¶7

RESPONDENT/S:

¶8

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

¶9

BY ADV PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶10

OTHER PRESENT:

¶11

T V NEEMA SR PP

¶12

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.03.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

B.A.No. 775 of 2023

¶14

¶15

A. BADHARUDEEN, J

¶16

…................................. B.A.No. 775 of 2023

¶17

…........................................................... Dated this the 10^th day of March, 2023

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.29/2023 of Murickassery Police Station, Idukki, alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 506(ii), 324 and 326 of Indian Penal Code.

¶20

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. I have perused the case diary along with the wound certificate and FIS.

¶21

The case of the prosecution is that at about 06:00 p.m., on 15.01.2023, the accused herein abused the defacto complainant, criminally intimidated and assaulted him with intention to cause grievous injuries. The specific allegation is that the accused herein reached the property of the defacto complainant and he threw a chopper against the defacto complainant after threatening to murder him. As a result of the same, the defacto complainant sustained aberration on the right

¶22

B.A.No. 775 of 2023

¶23

¶24

palm. Further allegation is that thereafter the accused beat on the knee of the defacto complainant and same caused fracture. Accordingly, the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under 294(b), 506(ii), 324 and 326 of Indian Penal Code.

¶25

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the entire allegations are false. According to him, the defacto complainant herein trespassed upon the property of the accused and obstructed drawing of water from the property of the defacto complainant, though such facility has been enjoyed by the accused and other people of the locality and there occurred scuffle. But the petitioner never intended to cause grievous injuries, as alleged. Therefore, the petitioner deserves anticipatory bail and the petitioner is ready to co-operate with the investigation.

¶26

The learned Public Prosecutor raised relevant documents including the wound certificate and strongly opposed bail highlighting the necessity of arrest, custodial interrogation and recovery of weapon. On perusal of the copy of the wound certificate, lacerated wound 4x3x2 cm on the anterior left knee was clinically diagnosed.

¶27

B.A.No. 775 of 2023

¶28

¶29

I have gone through the prosecution materials placed. On X-ray examination, it has been revealed that the defacto complainant sustained fracture on left knee petella. Thus the available material supported by the medical certificate also justified the prosecution case prima facie and in such a case, arrest, custodial interrogation and recovery of weapon are absolutely necessary to accomplish meaningful investigation. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

¶30

Therefore, the petition stands dismissed. Since the petitioner's counsel expressed the willingness of the petitioner to surrender before the Investigating Officer, the petitioner can surrender being a voluntary action.

¶31

sd/-

¶32

A. BADHARUDEEN, JUDGE

¶33

Dxy

Tijo John v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tijo John 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

Deepak K.C Vs State of Kerala

Kuttappan @ Johny Vs State of Kerala

Vipin V.S (Mistakenly Mentioned as Bibin in the Fir) Vs State of Kerala

Subin Varghese, Vs State of Kerala

Dany Joshy Vs State of Kerala

Abhijith.a.K Vs State of Kerala