Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Jineesh vs State of Kerala

Jineesh vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Orders Decided Mar 29, 2023
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1345877

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

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Kerala Orders High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
Bail Appl./2203/2023

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Jineesh

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....public prosecutor. perused the case diary materials produced by the learned public prosecutor.3. the prosecution case is that at about 20.00 hours on13.01.2023, the accused herein, after sharing common intention, wrongfully restrained the de facto complainant and manhandled him with the intention cause grievous hurt and thereby, the de facto complainant sustained serious injuries including fracture and loss of tooth. pursuant to the occurrence, on recording the statement of the de facto complainant crime was registered alleging commission of offences punishable under sections 341, 506(1), 326, 323 and 324 r/w 34 of ipc.4. the learned counsel for the petitioner/3rd accusedsubmitted that the allegation against the 3 rd accused is much less and the same is confined that of kicking. it is pointed out that the petitioner is ready to abide by any conditions as a pre- requisite in order to grant the relief of anticipatory bail. it is submitted further that the 1st accused was arrested and later released on bail and the 2nd accused surrendered and now he is in judicial custody.5. the learned public prosecutor submitted that in thismatter the de facto complainant sustained comminuted fracture of galeazzi right and he was subjected to surgery under regular anesthesia and open reduction and internal fixation have been done by application 3.5 cm dcp. therefore, the allegations are very serious. it is pointed out further that the 3 rd accused herein not only kicked on the de facto complainant, he had wrongfully restrained and also restrained the movement of the de facto complainant, whereby, he facilitated assault at the instance of the other accused by using dangerous weapon. therefore, arrest and custodial interrogation of the petitioner are absolutely necessary.6. on perusal of f.i.s and the argument advanced bythe learned public prosecutor, the overt act at the instance of the petitioner as argued by the learned public prosecutor could be gathered. that apart, in.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 8TH CHAITHRA, 1945 BAIL APPL. NO. 2203 OF 2023 CRIME NO.141 OF 2023 OF ARTHUNGAL POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA PETITIONER/ACCUSED :-

JINEESH AGED 44 YEARS PUTHENPURACKAL (H), CHTHY P.O, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688530 BY ADVS. NIDHEESH P. RAKESH R. RESPONDENTS/STATE AND INVESTIGATING OFFICER :- STATE OF KERALA STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 T V NEEMA, SRPP THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29.03.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

Dated, this the 29th day of March, 2023 This application for anticipatory bail has been filed by the third accused in Crime No.141 of 2023 of Arthunkal Police Station, Alappuzha.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the case diary materials produced by the learned Public Prosecutor.

3. The prosecution case is that at about 20.00 hours on

13.01.2023, the accused herein, after sharing common intention, wrongfully restrained the de facto complainant and manhandled him with the intention cause grievous hurt and thereby, the de facto complainant sustained serious injuries including fracture and loss of tooth. Pursuant to the occurrence, on recording the statement of the de facto complainant crime was registered alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 341, 506(1), 326, 323 and 324 r/w 34 of IPC.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner/3rd accused

submitted that the allegation against the 3 rd accused is much less and the same is confined that of kicking. It is pointed out that the petitioner is ready to abide by any conditions as a pre- requisite in order to grant the relief of anticipatory bail. It is submitted further that the 1st accused was arrested and later released on bail and the 2nd accused surrendered and now he is in judicial custody.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that in this

matter the de facto complainant sustained comminuted fracture of Galeazzi right and he was subjected to surgery under regular anesthesia and open reduction and internal fixation have been done by application 3.5 cm DCP. Therefore, the allegations are very serious. It is pointed out further that the 3 rd accused herein not only kicked on the de facto complainant, he had wrongfully restrained and also restrained the movement of the de facto complainant, whereby, he facilitated assault at the instance of the other accused by using dangerous weapon. Therefore, arrest and custodial interrogation of the petitioner are absolutely necessary.

6. On perusal of F.I.S and the argument advanced by

the learned Public Prosecutor, the overt act at the instance of the petitioner as argued by the learned Public Prosecutor could be gathered. That apart, in the treatment certificate issued from the Directorate of Medical Education, apart from comminuted fracture of Galeazzi right, admission of the petitioner for the purpose of correction of fracture on the right fore arm is noted. He was subjected to surgery under regular anesthesia and open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) with DCP application. Thus the prosecution case is well made out, prima facie. In such a case the petitioner could not be released on anticipatory bail as the same would be fatal to the investigation.

Accordingly this petition stands dismissed. Sd/- A. BADHARUDEEN JUDGE SMA APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 2203/2023 PETITIONER ANNEXURES :- Annexure A1 ORDER DISMISSED BY DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT, ALAPPUZH IN CRL MP NO.796/202 ON 4.3.2023

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial