Disposed

Joy Joseph v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC8 Jun 2023Crl.MC/632/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Crl.M.C No.632 of 2023, the High Court of Kerala held that reviews of observations made by a Sessions Judge during bail hearings are not appropriate because such courts do not analyze merits extensively at that stage, and remarks do not bind the trial outcome.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed with the direction to the petitioner that the observations do not affect other proceedings.

Joy Joseph Vs State of Kerala — Anticipatory Bail | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT

¶3

THEHONOURABLEMR.JUSTICERAJAVIJAYARAGHAVANV
THURSDAY,THE8THDAYOFJUNE2023/18THJYAISHTA,1945

¶4

CRL.MCNO.632OF2023

¶5

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRL.MC 1613/2022 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-II, ERNAKULAM CRMC 1613/2022 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-II, ERNAKULAM

¶6

PETITIONER/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶7

JOYJOSEPH
AGED66YEARS
S/OJOSEPH,RESIDINGATKAROTTUVEETTIL,
MALAYINKEEZH,KOTHAMANGALAM,ERNAKULAMDISTRICT,
PIN-686691

¶8

BYADVS.
G.HARIHARAN
PRAVEEN.H.
K.S.SMITHA
V.R.SANJEEVKUMAR
GENTLEC.D.
REVATHIP.M.

¶9

RESPONDENTS/STATE/COMPLAINANT & ACCUSED:

¶10

1STATEOFKERALA
REPRESENTEDBYTHEPUBLICPROSECUTOR,HIGHCOURT
OFKERALA,ERNAKULAM,PIN-682031

¶11

2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER KOTHAMANGALAM POLICE STATION, KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686691

¶12

3 MR.RIJO MATHEW S/O.MATHEW, VENGOORAM HOUSE, MALAYINKEEZH, KOTHAMANGALAM , ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686691

¶13

BYADVS.
ALIASM.CHERIANM
K.M.RAPHY(K/542/2012)

¶14

Crl.M.C No.632 of 2023

¶15

¶16

BRISTOSPARIYARAM(K/1756/2020)
VIVEKRADHAKRISHNAN(K/2164/2021)
ARUNC.S.(K/000832/2022)

¶17

OTHER PRESENT:

¶18

SRI.VIPINNARAYANSRPUBLICPROSECUTOR

¶19

THISCRIMINALMISC.CASEHAVINGCOMEUPFORADMISSIONON
08.06.2023,THECOURTONTHESAMEDAYPASSEDTHEFOLLOWING:

¶20

Crl.M.C No.632 of 2023

¶21

¶22

ORDER

¶23

This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C seeking to quash Annexure VIII order passed by the Ist Additional Sessions Judge granting anticipatory bail to the 3^rd respondent herein.

¶24

When the matter is taken up for consideration, it is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that pending consideration of this petition before this Court, the investigation has been completed, and the final report was laid before the jurisdictional court on 17.8.2022, and the case is pending as C.C No.637 of 2022.

¶25

The learned counsel submits that certain observations adverse

¶26

to the petitioner have been made by the learned Sessions Judge while disposing of the bail application and requests that the same be expunged lest they affect other pending proceedings

¶27

I have considered the submissions.

¶28

The grievance of the petitioner only concerns certain

¶29

observations made by the learned Sessions Judge while considering the application for Anticipatory Bail. It is trite that when deciding whether to

¶30

Crl.M.C No.632 of 2023

¶31

¶32

grant bail, the Sessions Court, in applications under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, is not expected to analyze extensively the factual details or merits of the case, as the actual criminal trial is yet to occur. It is important to note that the observations made during the bail hearing do not bind the final outcome of the trial. Therefore, any remarks made by the Sessions Judge will not impact other ongoing court proceedings and should be considered relevant only for the purpose of passing the order in the bail application. (See In Ramesh Bhavan Rathod v. Vishanbhai Hirabhai

¶33

Makwana [(2021) 6 SCC 230]

¶34

With the above observation, this petition is disposed of.

¶35

Sd/- RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, JUDGE

¶36

IAP

¶37

Crl.M.C No.632 of 2023

¶38

¶39

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 632/2023

¶40

PETITIONERANNEXURES

¶41

`Annexure I`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE OWNERSHIP CERTIFICATE` `RELATING TO BUILDING NO.30/627 ISSUED BY` `THE SECRETARY OF KOTHAMANGALAM` `MUNICIPALITY IN THE NAME OF THE` `PETITIONER ON 18.11.2021`
`Annexure II`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE FABRICATED AGREEMENT` `DATED 30.11.2016 BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT` `WHICH WAS MARKED AS EXHIBIT.A1 IN` `O.S.NO.451/2019 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF` `COURT, KOTHAMANGALAM`
`Annexure III`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED` `30.12.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE FORENSIC LAB` `REPORT SUBMITTED BY SMT.SUMI MITHRA` `(ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FORENSIC LAB,` `THIRUVANANTHAPURAM) WHICH WAS MARKED AS` `EXHIBIT.B14 IN O.S.NO.451/2019 BEFORE` `THE MUNSIFF COURT, KOTHAMANGALAM`
`Annexure IV`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED` `28.03.2018 FILED BY THE PETITIONER` `BEFORE THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF AGAINST` `THE 3RD RESPONDENT`
`Annexure V`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED` `23.05.2022 IN W.P.(C) NO.470/2021`
`Annexure VI`	`. A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED` `06.06.2022 FILED AS CMP NO.1462/2022` `BEFORE THE JFCM COURT - KOTHAMANGALAM` `THE 3RD RESPONDENT`
`Annexure VII`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR REGISTERED BY THE` `2ND RESPONDENT AGAINST THE 3RD`

¶42

Crl.M.C No.632 of 2023

¶43

¶44

RESPONDENTASCRIMENO.1133/2022OF
KOTHAMANGALAMPOLICESTATION

¶45

AnnexureVIIIATRUECOPYOFTHEORDERMADEIN
CRL.M.C.NO.1613/2022DATED22.07.2022BY
THEFIRSTADDITIONALSESSIONSJUDGE,
ERNAKULAM
AnnexureIXATRUECOPYOFTHECASESTATUSRELATING
TOW.P.(CRL)817/2022PENDINGBEFORETHIS
HON'BLECOURT
AnnexureXATRUECOPYOFTHECOMMONJUDGMENTMADE
INO.S.NO,451/2019ANDO.S.NO.461/2019
MADEON30.09.2021BYTHEHON'BLE
MUNSIFFCOURT,KOTHAMANGALAM

Joy Joseph v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Joy Joseph 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

K.R Prakash Vs State of Kerala

Salim.F, Vs State of Kerala

Shainu v K Vs State of Kerala

Suresh Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Biju P.R. Vs Bijo James

Gireesh Vs State of Kerala