Joshy vs State of Kerala

JOSHY vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Orders Decided Feb 27, 2023

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1398769

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/1398769
Court: Kerala Orders High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr.Justice Viju Abraham
Decided On: Feb 27, 2023
Case Number: Bail Appl./8971/2022

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

JOSHY

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....of offences punishable under sections 452, 341, 323, 324, 308, 294(b) r/w section 34 of ipc.3. the prosecution allegation is that, on14.04.2021 at about 4.40 pm, due to prior enmity that the petitioner's mother was denied treatment by the defacto complainant, the petitioner along with other accused had trespassed into the property of the defacto complainant, assaulted him by fisting and attacking by a wooden reaper. the defacto complainant sustained injury on his head including 7 stitches and thereby the accused have committed the aforesaid offences. b.a. no. 8971 of 2022 34. petitioners submit that a false case has been registered against them. in fact on 14.04.2021, the1st petitioner’s wife went to the clinic of the defacto complainant and she was assaulted and based on a complaint annexure 2 crime was registered. the petitioner also relies on annexure a4 paper report which shows that the defecto complainant in the present case is involved in a pocso case.5. the defacto complainant entered appearancethrough counsel and submitted that annexure 2 crime was registered based on a false complaint and the police conducted an investigation and filed a refer report finding the complaint is false. as regard the involvement in a pocso case, the learned counsel submits that he is already granted bail by the addl. district and sessions court, ernakulam in c.m.p. no.i have considered the bail application of the petitioners earlier and rejected the same, mainly taking into consideration the seriousness of the allegation wherein a practicing doctor was attackedb.a. no. 8971 of 2022 4 and his clinic was destroyed, and he sustained serious injuries on his head which resulted in six stitches and also taking into consideration the criminal antecedents of the petitioners. while disposing of the bail application, a direction was also issued to the jurisdictional magistrate to consider the bail application, preferably on the very same day. considering the seriousness of.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM MONDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023 / 8TH PHALGUNA, 1944 BAIL APPL. NO. 8971 OF 2022 PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 & 2: 1 JOSHY,AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.K.C.ANTONY, KANJITHARA HOUSE, KAVANAD.P.O., MALA,, PIN - 680732 2 AJO THOMAS AGED 41 YEARS, S/O.THOMAS, KANNANGATH HOUSE, MALA KOTTAMURY DESOM, KOTTAMURY.P.O., CHALAKUDY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680732 G.HARIHARAN PRAVEEN.H. K.S.SMITHA V.R.SANJEEV KUMAR GENTLE C.D. RESPONDENTS/STATE/COMPLAINANT & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

1 STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER MALA POLICE STATION, MALA,THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680732 3 GEORGE JOHN,MARIYA KRIPA HEALTH CARE AT KUZHUR.P.O., CHALAKKUDY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680734 JIMMY GEORGE PEARL K.DAVIS(K/799/1993)

OTHER PRESENT: PP - SYAMANTHAK B.S. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27.02.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: B.A. No. 8971 of 2022 2

VIJU ABRAHAM, J.

------------------------ B.A. No. 8971 of 2022 ------------------------------ Dated this the 27th day of February, 2023

ORDER

This is an application for anticipatory bail.

2. Petitioners are accused Nos.1 & 2 in Crime No.272 of 2021 of Mala Police Station, registered alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 452, 341, 323, 324, 308, 294(b) r/w Section 34 of IPC.

3. The prosecution allegation is that, on

14.04.2021 at about 4.40 pm, due to prior enmity that the petitioner's mother was denied treatment by the defacto complainant, the petitioner along with other accused had trespassed into the property of the defacto complainant, assaulted him by fisting and attacking by a wooden reaper. The defacto complainant sustained injury on his head including 7 stitches and thereby the accused have committed the aforesaid offences. B.A. No. 8971 of 2022 3

4. Petitioners submit that a false case has been registered against them. In fact on 14.04.2021, the

1st petitioner’s wife went to the clinic of the defacto complainant and she was assaulted and based on a complaint Annexure 2 crime was registered. The petitioner also relies on Annexure A4 paper report which shows that the defecto complainant in the present case is involved in a POCSO case.

5. The defacto complainant entered appearance

through counsel and submitted that Annexure 2 crime was registered based on a false complaint and the police conducted an investigation and filed a refer report finding the complaint is false. As regard the involvement in a POCSO case, the learned counsel submits that he is already granted bail by the Addl. District and Sessions Court, Ernakulam in C.M.P. No.

I have considered the bail application of the petitioners earlier and rejected the same, mainly taking into consideration the seriousness of the allegation wherein a practicing doctor was attacked

B.A. No. 8971 of 2022 4 and his clinic was destroyed, and he sustained serious injuries on his head which resulted in six stitches and also taking into consideration the criminal antecedents of the petitioners. While disposing of the bail application, a direction was also issued to the jurisdictional magistrate to consider the bail application, preferably on the very same day. Considering the seriousness of the

allegation,        I    do     not    find   any     reason      to     take    a
different view              from the       one taken       in Annexure          3
order.       The        bail         application       is     accordingly
dismissed.                                                       sd/-

VIJU ABRAHAM, JUDGE pm

Same Court & Year Kerala Orders · 2023 Same Parties JOSHY vs State of Kerala Same Judge Honourable Mr.Justice Viju Abraham