David N Vs. the State of Kerala

David N vs The State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Nov 11, 2013

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1097110

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1097110
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr.Justice K.T.Sankaran
Decided On: Nov 11, 2013
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

David N

Respondent

The State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....and section 3(1)(viii) and 3(1)(x) of the scheduled cases and scheduled tribes (prevention of atrocities) act 1989, apprehends arrest and have filed this application.2. learned public prosecutor has submitted that a complaint was preferred by the defacto complainant to the chief of police, kollam (that complaint is seen dated 05.05.2012) alleging that on 09.05.2012 (as stated in the fir) at about 3p.m. the petitioners trespassed into the house of the defacto complainant, assaulted her husband and called him caste name.3. learned counsel submits that the allegations are not true, son of the defacto complainant was working under the petitioners and he committed theft of money, misappropriation and breach of b.a..no.3410 of 2013 2 trust for which annexure a1 complaint was preferred in may, 2012 following which annexure a2 was registered on 15.05.2012 it is also submitted that the allegations under the sc/st (pa) act are intentionally incorporated to deny release to the petitioners under 438 cr.p.c.4. i have gone through the complaint preferred by the defacto complainant to the chief of police, kollam and find that the main complaint is regarding non-payment of wages to the son of the defacto complainant. though in connection with the alleged incident (on 09.05.2012) there is reference to the petitioners calling caste name. it is also seen that in the earlier portions of the complaint, at the portion where the caste name was to be mentioned, the space is left blank.4. having regard to the nature of allegations made, though, it is not for me to say at this stage whether the allegations are true or not, i am inclined to grant relief. resultantly, the application is allowed as under:- 1. petitioners shall surrender before the officer investigating crime no.1216 of 2013 of the kilikolloor b.a..no.3410 of 2013 3 police station on 15.11.2013 at 10 a.m. for interrogation.2. in case interrogation of the petitioners is not completed that day, it is open to the investigating.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY,THE11H DAY OF NOVEMBER201320TH KARTHIKA, 1935 Bail Appl..No. 3410 of 2013 () ------------------------------------------ CRIME NO. 1216/2012 OF KILIKOLLOOR POLICE STATION , KOLLAM ------------- PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 & 2: -------------------------------------------------- 1. DAVID N, AGED39YEARS, SON OF NELSON, ANSWARA, VAYALIKADA JUNCTION, MUKKOLA P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 044.

2. BIJU SEBASTIAN, AGED38YEARS, SON OF EDWARD, VADAKKEVILA KIZHAKKATHIL, MATHRIKA NAGAR170 ULIYAKOVIL CHERRY, KOLLAM EAST VILLAGE, KOLLAM - 691 019. BY ADV. SRI.JOHNSON GOMEZ RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, KOLLAM.

2. KUNJUMOL, AGED45YEARS, WIFE OF KAMALASANAN, KANDACHALIL HOUSE, PRATHEEKSHA NAGAR220 KILIMOLLOOR, KOLLAM - 691 003. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.SREEJITH THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON1111-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PJ THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J.

---------------------------------------- Bail Application No.3410 of 2013 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of November, 2013 ORDER

Petitioners are accused in Crime No.1216 of 2013 of the Kilikolloor Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 452 and 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(viii) and 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Cases and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989, apprehends arrest and have filed this application.

2. Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that a complaint was preferred by the defacto complainant to the Chief of Police, Kollam (that complaint is seen dated 05.05.2012) alleging that on 09.05.2012 (as stated in the FIR) at about 3p.m. the petitioners trespassed into the house of the defacto complainant, assaulted her husband and called him caste name.

3. Learned counsel submits that the allegations are not true, son of the defacto complainant was working under the petitioners and he committed theft of money, misappropriation and breach of B.A..No.3410 of 2013 2 trust for which Annexure A1 complaint was preferred in May, 2012 following which Annexure A2 was registered on 15.05.2012 it is also submitted that the allegations under the SC/ST (PA) Act are intentionally incorporated to deny release to the petitioners under 438 Cr.P.C.

4. I have gone through the complaint preferred by the defacto complainant to the Chief of Police, Kollam and find that the main complaint is regarding non-payment of wages to the son of the defacto complainant. Though in connection with the alleged incident (on 09.05.2012) there is reference to the petitioners calling caste name. It is also seen that in the earlier portions of the complaint, at the portion where the caste name was to be mentioned, the space is left blank.

4. Having regard to the nature of allegations made, though, it is not for me to say at this stage whether the allegations are true or not, I am inclined to grant relief. Resultantly, the application is allowed as under:- 1. Petitioners shall surrender before the Officer investigating Crime No.1216 of 2013 of the Kilikolloor B.A..No.3410 of 2013 3 Police Station on 15.11.2013 at 10 a.m. for interrogation.

2. In case interrogation of the petitioners is not completed that day, it is open to the investigating officer concerned to direct presence of the petitioners on any other day/days and time as he may specify which the petitioners shall comply.

3. Petitioners shall co-operate with the investigation of the case.

4. After interrogation in case arrest of the petitioners is recorded, they shall be produced before the Sessions Judge concerned, the same day.

5. On such production, the petitioners shall be released on bail on their executing bond for Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen thousand only) each with two sureties each for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge and subject to the following conditions: a) Petitioners shall report to the investigating officer as and when required for interrogation. B.A..No.3410 of 2013 4 b) Petitioners shall co-operate with the investigation of the case. c) Petitioners shall not intimidate or influence the witnesses. d) It is made clear that in case any of the above condition is violated, it is open to the Investigating Officer to seek cancellation of the bail granted hereby by moving application before the learned Sessions Judge concerned as held in P.K. Shaji V. State of Kerala (AIR2006 Supreme Court 100). THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE sp

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2013 Same Parties David N vs The State of Kerala Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge Honourable Mr.Justice K.T.Sankaran