Jayaprakash vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Oct 21, 2021

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1679372

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/1679372
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr. Justice Gopinath P.
Decided On: Oct 21, 2021
Case Number: Bail Appl./7502/2021

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Jayaprakash

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....in crime no.under sections 143, 147, 447, 427, 323, 354, 294(b) and 506(1) r/w section 149 of the indian penal code. the allegation against the petitioners is that they along with 4 others trespassed into the compound of the sister of the de-facto complainant and assaulted her and her family members and that the defacto complainant's sister was was molested by grabbing her churidhar and her body and in the process she lost her gold chain weighing about 2.5 sovereigns.3. the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the incident iscompletely cooped up. it is submitted that the de-facto complainant's sister is none other than the wife of the brother of the first petitioner and that there are civil disputes between the first petitioner and his brother and that the complaint was filedonly to settle such disputes. it is also submitted that the husband of the de-facto complainant, one santhosh kumar had come to the residence of the first petitioner and quarreled with him and that he had snatched away his mobile phone and chain. when the petitioners went to the residence of the brother of the first petitioner, the said santhosh kumar and his associates attacked the petitioners which resulted in the second petitioner suffering injuries. reference is made in this regard to annexure a2 wound certificate issued in respect of the 2nd petitioner.4. the learned public prosecutor on instructions submitted that the woundcertificate in respect of the sister of the de-facto complainant would suggest that the incident was occurred as complained of by the de-facto complainant and that the petitioners were the aggressors. however, it is also admitted that there are civil disputes between the parties.5. having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case,and especially considering the fact that there are civil disputes between the first petitioner and his brother (husband of the sister of the de-facto complainant), i am of the view that this.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P. THURSDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 29TH ASWINA, 1943 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMC 1840/2021 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT - VIII, ERNAKULAM, ERNAKULAM (CRIME NO. 619/2021 OF BINANIPURAM POLICE STATION) PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 AND 2 : 1 JAYAPRAKASH AGED 60 YEARS S/O.BALAGANGADHARA MENON, PUTHANVETTIL HOUSE, EAST KADUNGALLOOR KAR, KADAUNGALLOOR VILLAGE, PARAVUR TALUK, PIN - 683 102. 2 AKHIL PRAKASH AGED 30 YEARS S/O.JAYAPRAKASH, PUTHANVEETTIL HOUSE, EAST KADUNGALLOOR KARA, KADUNGALLOOR VILLAGE, PARAVUR TALUK, TALUK, PIN - 683 102. BY ADV V.N.SUNIL KUMAR RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682 031. OTHER PRESENT: SMT. SEETHA. S. (SR.PP) THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.10.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

This is an application for anticipatory bail.

2. The petitioners who are father and son who are accused in Crime No.

under Sections 143, 147, 447, 427, 323, 354, 294(b) and 506(1) r/w Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegation against the petitioners is that they along with 4 others trespassed into the compound of the sister of the de-facto complainant and assaulted her and her family members and that the defacto complainant's sister was was molested by grabbing her churidhar and her body and in the process she lost her gold chain weighing about 2.5 sovereigns.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the incident is

completely cooped up. It is submitted that the de-facto complainant's sister is none other than the wife of the brother of the first petitioner and that there are civil disputes between the first petitioner and his brother and that the complaint was filed

only to settle such disputes. It is also submitted that the husband of the de-facto complainant, one Santhosh Kumar had come to the residence of the first petitioner and quarreled with him and that he had snatched away his mobile phone and chain. When the petitioners went to the residence of the brother of the first petitioner, the said Santhosh Kumar and his associates attacked the petitioners which resulted in the second petitioner suffering injuries. Reference is made in this regard to Annexure A2 wound certificate issued in respect of the 2nd petitioner.

4. The learned Public Prosecutor on instructions submitted that the wound

certificate in respect of the sister of the de-facto complainant would suggest that the incident was occurred as complained of by the de-facto complainant and that the petitioners were the aggressors. However, it is also admitted that there are civil disputes between the parties.

5. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case,

and especially considering the fact that there are civil disputes between the first petitioner and his brother (husband of the sister of the de-facto complainant), I am of the view that this is a case where anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioners subject to strict conditions to ensure that the investigation into the alleged crime is not affected in any manner.

In the result, this application for anticipatory bail is allowed and it is directed that the petitioners shall be released on bail in the event of arrest in connection with Crime No.619/2021 of Binanipuram Police Station subject to the following conditions:

(i). The petitioners shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Judicial First Class Magistrate court - II, Aluva; (ii). The petitioners shall not attempt to interfere with the investigation or to influence or to intimidate any witness in Crime No.619/2021 of Binanipuram Police Station. (iii). The petitioners shall not involve in any other crime while on bail. If any of the aforesaid conditions are violated, the investigation officer in Crime No.619/2021 of Binanipuram police station may file an application before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court- II, Aluva for cancellation of bail.

Sd/- GOPINATH P. JUDGE al/-

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2021 Same Parties Jayaprakash vs State of Kerala Same Judge Honourable Mr. Justice Gopinath P.