Jacob John vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 19077 Ker

BAIL APPL. NO. 6665 OF 2021           1




              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                  PRESENT
                 THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V.
    MONDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 22ND BHADRA, 1943
                      BAIL APPL. NO. 6665 OF 2021
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CMP 3571/2021 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
                 OF FIRST CLASS , KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA
   (Crime No.794 of Kayamkulam police station, Alappuzha dist)
PETITIONER/ACCUSED

            JACOB JOHN
            AGED 24 YEARS
            S/O. JOHN MATHEW, KRIPALAYAM VEETIL, KAPPIL KIZHAKKU
            MURI, KRISHNA PURAM VILLAGE, KARTHIKAPPALLY TALUK,
            ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-690 533
            BY ADVS.
            RASHEED C.NOORANAD
            R.AJAYGHOSH
            ANITHA M.N. (EKM)


RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT/STATE:

    1       STATE OF KERALA
            REP BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
            ERNAKULAM-682 031
    2       STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
            KAYAMKULAM POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-690 101

OTHER PRESENT:

            SRI.MANU.P.G - SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR



     THIS   BAIL    APPLICATION   HAVING    COME   UP   FOR   ADMISSION   ON
13.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 BAIL APPL. NO. 6665 OF 2021               2




                                       ORDER

This application is filed by the first accused in Crime No.794 of

2021 of Kayamkulam Police Sation registered for the offences

punishable under Sections 452, 323, 324, 326, 308, 427 read with

Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. He has been in custody since 09.08.2021.

4. The allegation is that on 06.08.2021 at about 3.00 p.m this

petitioner along with the other accused with the intention to attack the

defacto complainant had trespassed into his residential house and

dragged him into the kitchen and attacked him brutally. The first

accused with a chopper hacked on his neck. But he evaded the same

and it fell on the back of his head causing severe injuries including

fracture. The other accused has also attacked him and thereby

committed the aforesaid offences.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well the learned

Public Prosecutor.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has raised a plea of false

implication and submitted that the defacto complainant is a nuisance to

that locality and he is involved in so many criminal cases. On an earlier

occasion he had damaged the car owned by the second accused and

when an amount was demanded to compensate the same, he agreed to

pay the same. So these accused had gone to the residence of the

defacto complainant demanding the amount agreed to be paid as

compensation for the damages caused to the vehicle. When they asked

for the money agreed to be paid, he refused the same and tried to

attack the accused persons and somehow or other he also sustained

injuries. In fact, the petitioner has not committed any offences as

alleged by the prosecution. But he is undergoing incarceration. Hence,

this application.

7. The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the injury

sustained by the defacto complainant are grave and serious in nature.

Though he has been discharged from the hospital he is still continuing

his treatment. Hence, this application is opposed.

8. The petitioner is aged only 24 years having no criminal

antecedents. Of course serious accusations have been raised against

this petitioner as the injuries have been caused by him alone. But it is a

fact that the investigation has progressed considerably and recovery of

the weapon used by him had already been effected by the investigating

agency.

9. On hearing both sides, I could not find any materials to

conclude that further detention of this petitioner is required for the

investigating agency to complete the investigation and to submit the

final report. The other accused have not been apprehended so far. Even

though the other accused have not been arrested, still I think that this

petitioner can be released on bail subject to the following conditions.

(i) The petitioner shall be released on bail on his executing bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the court having jurisdiction.

(ii) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation as and when required by him, in writing, till filing of the final report.

(iii) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

(iv) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail.

In case of violation of any of the above conditions,

the learned Magistrate is empowered to cancel the bail in

accordance with the law.

Sd/-

SHIRCY V.

JUDGE smm