T.J.Yohannan vs The State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 19140 Ker

BAIL APPL. NO. 6260 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. 6260 OF 2021
   AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMP 1443/2021 OF DISTRICT &
                 SESSIONS COURT, ALAPPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA
         (CRIME NO.603 OF 2021 OF MANNAR POLICE STATION)
PETITIONER/2nd ACCUSED

            T.J.YOHANNAN,
            AGED 74 YEARS
            S/O. JOHN, ARIYANNURKULANGARA HOUSE, KUTTEMPEROOR MURI
            (P.O.), MANNAR VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT 689 623.
            BY ADVS.
            RINNY STEPHEN CHAMAPARAMPIL(K/2627/1999)
            ASHA ELIZABETH MATHEW


RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

            THE STATE OF KERALA
            REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
            ERNAKULAM 682 031.

OTHER PRESENT:

            SMT. SREEJA.V- 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. 6260 OF 2021              2




                                   ORDER

Apprehending arrest in connection with Crime No.603 of

2021 of Mannar police station, Alappuzha District registered for the

offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 326, 341, and 34 of the

Indian Penal Code, this petitioner who is the second accused has

moved this application under 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. The prosecution case in brief is as follows:

The petitioner and his son who is the first accused were

entertaining enmity towards the defacto complainant who is none other

than their relative. As result of the enmity they have attacked the

defacto complainant sharing the common intention to cause injuries to

him. On 01.07.2021 at about 7.30 p.m they have wrongfully restrained

him, attacked him with weapons and caused injuries including fracture

and thereby committed the aforesaid offences.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned

Public Prosecutor.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that

there are civil litigations between the accused and the defacto

complainant and cases are pending before the civil court. In fact this

petitioner was attacked by the defacto complainant and he was

admitted in the hospital for several days and a case has been

registered against the defacto complainant on his complaint as Crime

No.605/2021 and the case is under investigation.

5. This petitioner who is aged 74 years has absolutely no

participation in the alleged incident. But he has been falsely implicated

by the defacto complainant who is entertaining enmity towards him.

Though the allegations levelled against him are absolutely false and

baseless, he apprehends arrest and that is why he is compelled to

approach this Court with this petition.

6. The learned Public Prosecutor has also submitted that a crime

has been registered on the complaint by this petitioner against the

defacto complainant and that case is also under investigation along

with this case.

7. Perused the records

8. A perusal of the records produced by the petitioner would

show that the specific allegation in causing injuries to the defacto

complainant is against the first accused. He has already been arrested

and released on bail. The investigating agency has also recovered the

weapon used by the petitioner and the first accused in causing injuries

on the defacto compliant. But the first accused had already been

released on bail and it is also a fact that a case has been registered

against the defacto complainant for causing injuries to this petitioner.

Of course a perusal of the discharge summary card issued from the

hospital where this petitioner has undergone treatment would show

that he sustained only minor injuries. The fact that the petitioner is

aged 74 years cannot be ignored especially during the pandemic

situation. Moreover it is evident from the records that civil disputes are

pending between the parties and those cases are pending before the

civil court, for adjudication.

Considering all the facts and circumstances involved in this case

as well the fact that the first accused had already been granted bail by

this Court, I think that the request made by this petitioner can also be

considered favourably. Therefore this petition will stand allowed subject

to the following conditions:

(i) The petitioner shall be released on bail on executing bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum each in the event of arrest by the police in connection with the above crime.

(ii) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation as and when required by him in writing. He shall co- operate with the investigation of the case.

(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.

smm                                                      JUDGE