Joy Joseph Vs. State of Kerala - Court Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALAAT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.KEMAL PASHA TUESDAY,THE 2ND DAY OF JULY 2013 11TH ASHADHA, 1935 BAIL APP. NO. 3737 OF 201.() ------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN CRL.M.P. 1174/2013 OF SESSIONS COURT,KOTTAYAM DATED 29 04-2013 CRIME NO. 195/2013 OF KADUTHURUTHI POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM ------------------------------------ PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO 3 : ----------------------------------------- JOY JOSEPH, AGED 6 YEARS, S/O.JOSEPH, MAVELIL HOUSE, KODALLOOR KARA, KIDANGOOR P.O, KIDANGOOR VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.NIREESH MATHEW RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT : ---------------------------------------------- STATEOF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. V.S. SREEJITH THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02-07-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAYPASSED THE FOLLOWING: NS B. KEMAL PASHA, J ------------------------------------ B.A. No. 3737 of 2013 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of July, 2013 ORDER

This is a petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Petitioner is the 3rd accused in Crime No.195 of 2013 of Kaduthuruthy Police Station registered for the offence punishable under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. It is alleged that A1 and A2 who are the daughter-in-law and her sister of the petitioner had entered into an agreement for the sale of 1 acre 90 cents of their property with the defacto complainant by accepting part of consideration. It is further alleged that the job of the construction of a compound wall and to fill the property with red sand was entrusted with the present petitioner by paying `.2.5. lakhs, and that the B.A. No.3737/13 -:2:- petitioner has not so far cared to perform the said work. In fact the sale also did not take place and the balance consideration was not received by A1 and A2.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the case diary. On going through the contents of the case diary, it has come out that the crime has been registered on the basis of a private complaint filed by the defacto complainant before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Vaikom which was referred to the Police under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The facts and circumstances of the case and the contents of the case diary prima facie reveal that the matter involved is more or less civil in nature as it may amount to breach of contract. Whatever it is, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required for the continued investigation of this case. Matter being so, I am satisfied that anticipatory bail can be granted to the B.A. No.3737/13 -:3:- petitioner. In the result, this B.A. is allowed and the Investigating Officer or such other police officer who is conducting the arrest of the petitioner is directed to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest on his executing a bond for `.25,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five thousand only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the officer conducting arrest, and subject to the following terms and conditions. (1) The petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer in between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m. on all Tuesdays and Fridays, commencing from 09.07.2013 for a period of three months or till the filing of the final report of this case whichever is earlier. (2) The petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence or influence witnesses. (3) The petitioner shall make himself available for B.A. No.3737/13 -:4:- interrogation as and when required by the Investigating Officer. (4) The petitioner shall not involve in any offence while on bail. It is made clear that the violation of any of the conditions stipulated above will result in the cancellation of bail. Sd/- B. KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE. // True Copy // P.A. To Judge DSV/-