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.

Clinton vs State of Kerala

Clinton vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Sep 13, 2021
~4 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1666209

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 High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
Bail Appl./6440/2021

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Clinton

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....of the indian penal code. b.a.no.6440/2021 is an application filed by accused no.3 in the same crime.2. the prosecution case is that on 27.07.2021 at about10.00 p.m, these petitioners along with the other accused due to their enmity towards the defacto complainant trespassed into the shop run by him and attacked him with a cricket bat and also threatened him with dire consequences pointing a gun towards him. the 1st accused had also used a jacky liver to cause injuries to the defacto complainant. they have also caused damages to the building and destroyed the mobile phones of the office staff and caused damages to the window panes and cctv camera and thereby caused loss to the tune of rs.29,000/- and thereby committed the aforesaid offences.3. the petitioners are in custody since 05.08.2021.4. according to the learned counsel for the petitioners,they are totally innocent of the allegations levelled against them. in fact, they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution by trespassing into the business concern run by the defacto complainant. but they are undergoing incarceration for the last more than one month.5. the learned public prosecutor though opposed the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners has fairly admitted that recovery of the weapons used by these petitioners to inflict grievous injuries on the defacto complainant had already been recovered. but the 1st accused has not been arrested as he is undergoing treatment.6. having regard to the nature of the accusations levelledagainst these petitioners, the present stage of investigation as well the fact that recovery of the weapons used by these petitioners have been effected, both these petitioners can be released on bail subject to the following conditions:(i) the petitioners shall be released on bail on their executing bond for a sum of rs.50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand only) each with two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the court.....

Full Judgment

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. 6400 OF 2021 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMP 894/2021 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - IX, ERNAKULAM PETITIONER/2ND ACCUSED: AJEESH AGED 31 YEARS S/O.VIJAYA LAKSHMI, MACHINGAL (H), NEAR M.R.M.L.P.SCHOOL, PATTIPPARAMBU KARA, KANIYARKOD VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 588. BY ADV P.A.MUJEEB RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: STATE OF KERALA THROUGH THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PALARIVATTOM POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN - 682 031. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.09.2021, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..6440/2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

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. 6440 OF 2021 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMP 901/2021 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - IX, ERNAKULAM

PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.3: CLINTON AGED 30 YEARS S/O.ANTONY, CHEMPLAYIL HOUSE, PUTHUSSERY POYIL KARA, VELLARAVELLI VILLAGE, IRUTTI TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670 673. BY ADV P.A.MUJEEB RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: STATE OF KERALA THROUGH THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PALARIVATTOM POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN - 682 031. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.09.2021, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..6400/2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

Applications for regular bail. B.A.No.6400/2021 is an application for bail filed by the 2 nd accused in Crime No.1293/2021 of Palarivattom Police Station, Ernakulam District registered for the offences punishable under Sections 452, 324, 326, 308, 427, 506 Part II r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. B.A.No.6440/2021 is an application filed by accused No.3 in the same crime.

2. The prosecution case is that on 27.07.2021 at about

10.00 p.m, these petitioners along with the other accused due to their enmity towards the defacto complainant trespassed into the shop run by him and attacked him with a cricket bat and also threatened him with dire consequences pointing a gun towards him. The 1st accused had also used a jacky liver to cause injuries to the defacto complainant. They have also caused damages to the building and destroyed the mobile phones of the office staff and caused damages to the window panes and CCTV camera and thereby caused loss to the tune of Rs.29,000/- and thereby committed the aforesaid offences.

3. The petitioners are in custody since 05.08.2021.

4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners,

they are totally innocent of the allegations levelled against them. In fact, they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution by trespassing into the business concern run by the defacto complainant. But they are undergoing incarceration for the last more than one month.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor though opposed the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners has fairly admitted that recovery of the weapons used by these petitioners to inflict grievous injuries on the defacto complainant had already been recovered. But the 1st accused has not been arrested as he is undergoing treatment.

6. Having regard to the nature of the accusations levelled

against these petitioners, the present stage of investigation as well the fact that recovery of the weapons used by these petitioners have been effected, both these petitioners can be released on bail subject to the following conditions:

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

(ii) They shall appear before the Investigating Officer

for interrogation on 1st Saturday of every month between 10.30 a.m and 11.30 a.m and this will continue for a period of two months or till filing of the final report, which ever is earlier.

(iii) They 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) They 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 mpm

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial