Albin.T.S Vs. State of Kerala - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1098640
CourtKerala High Court
Decided OnNov-20-2013
JudgeHONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN
AppellantAlbin.T.S
RespondentState of Kerala
Excerpt:
in the high court of kerala at ernakulam present: the honourable mr.justice p.bhavadasan wednesday, the20h day of november201329th karthika, 1935 bail appl..no. 7572 of 2013 () ------------------------------- crime no. 430/2013 of arthungal police station, alappuzha ------------------------ petitioners/accused nos. 4 and5: ----------------------------------------------------------- 1. albin t.s., s/o.sebastian, aged18years residing at thekeveli, areeparambu cherthala south p.o., cherthala south, alappuzha.2. arjun t.a., s/o.ashokan, aged19years, residing at aryakkaraveli kuruppumkulangara p.o., cherthala south, alappuzha. by advs.sri.joby cyriac sri.george sebastian respondent/complainant : ---------------------------------------------- state of kerala, represented by the public prosecutor high court of kerala, ernakulam - 682 031. by public prosecutor smt. p. maya this bail application having come up for admission on2011-2013, the court on the same day passed the following: mn p.bhavadasan, j.- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - b.a. no. 7572 of 2013 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - dated this the 20th day of november, 2013 order petitioners are accused in crime no.430 of 2013 of arthunkal police station who are alleged to have committed the offences punishable under sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 458, 323, 326 and 308 of ipc.2. there is an averment in the petition that the 4th petitioner was a juvenile at the relevant time and therefore proceedings cannot be initiated. as far as the second petitioner is concerned, who is the 5th accused would point out that he has not committed any act which would constitute an offence and he has been unnecessarily implicated. it is pointed out by the said petitioner that initially, he was not named by the defacto complainant and later on, after the lapse of much time, his name was mentioned.3. the learned public prosecutor was directed to get instructions regarding the claim made by the first petitioner b.a. no. 7572/2013 -2- that he was a juvenile at the relevant time. the learned public prosecutor on instructions submits that as per the s.s.l.c. book, the date of birth is shown as 02.05.1995 in which case the first petitioner has crossed the age of 18. however, the petitioner has produced ext.a1 which is an extract of the register of births and deaths maintained by the local authority shows that the date of birth of the first petitioner is 02.09.1995 in which case the incident which took place on 02.08.2013 is at a time when the first petitioner had not completed 18 years of age.4. under these circumstances, it is only proper to direct that the first petitioner may be produced or appear before the board and seek an enquiry regarding his age at the time of the commission of offence.5. as far as the second petitioner is concerned, this court is given to understand that the sixth accused has already been granted anticipatory bail and the others have been granted regular bail.6. after having gone through the records, it is found b.a. no. 7572/2013 -3- that the role attributed to the petitioner is negligible. it cannot be said that he has no liability for the acts committed for the simple reason that he is alleged to be among the group of persons who mounted the attack on the defacto complainant.7. considering the totality of the circumstances, it is felt that this is a fit case where extraordinary jurisdiction of this court needs to be exercised in favour of the second petitioner. the petition is disposed of as against the first petitioner as already mentioned and as far as the second petitioner is concerned, the petition is allowed as follows:1. the petitioner shall surrender before the investigating officer on or before 27.11.2013, who, after interrogation, shall produce him before the jfcm court concerned, which court, on an application for bail being moved by the petitioner shall release him on bail on his executing a bond for a sum of `15,000/- (rupees fifteen thousand b.a. no. 7572/2013 -4- only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the said court. 2) the court shall ensure the identity of the sureties and the veracity of the tax receipts, before granting bail. 3) the petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer on every wednesday between 9.00 am and 10.00 am until further orders. 4) the petitioner shall not tamper or attempt to tamper with the evidence and influence or try to influence the witnesses. 5) if any of the conditions is violated, the bail granted shall stand cancelled and the court concerned, of being satisfied of the said fact, may take such proceedings as are available in law. p.bhavadasan judge ds
Judgment:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN WEDNESDAY, THE20H DAY OF NOVEMBER201329TH KARTHIKA, 1935 Bail Appl..No. 7572 of 2013 () ------------------------------- CRIME NO. 430/2013 OF ARTHUNGAL POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA ------------------------ PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS. 4 AND5: ----------------------------------------------------------- 1. ALBIN T.S., S/O.SEBASTIAN, AGED18YEARS RESIDING AT THEKEVELI, AREEPARAMBU CHERTHALA SOUTH P.O., CHERTHALA SOUTH, ALAPPUZHA.

2. ARJUN T.A., S/O.ASHOKAN, AGED19YEARS, RESIDING AT ARYAKKARAVELI KURUPPUMKULANGARA P.O., CHERTHALA SOUTH, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADVS.SRI.JOBY CYRIAC SRI.GEORGE SEBASTIAN RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT : ---------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. P. MAYA THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON2011-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Mn P.BHAVADASAN, J.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A. No. 7572 of 2013 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 20th day of November, 2013 ORDER

Petitioners are accused in Crime No.430 of 2013 of Arthunkal Police Station who are alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 458, 323, 326 and 308 of IPC.

2. There is an averment in the petition that the 4th petitioner was a juvenile at the relevant time and therefore proceedings cannot be initiated. As far as the second petitioner is concerned, who is the 5th accused would point out that he has not committed any act which would constitute an offence and he has been unnecessarily implicated. It is pointed out by the said petitioner that initially, he was not named by the defacto complainant and later on, after the lapse of much time, his name was mentioned.

3. The learned Public Prosecutor was directed to get instructions regarding the claim made by the first petitioner B.A. No. 7572/2013 -2- that he was a juvenile at the relevant time. The learned Public Prosecutor on instructions submits that as per the S.S.L.C. Book, the date of birth is shown as 02.05.1995 in which case the first petitioner has crossed the age of 18. However, the petitioner has produced Ext.A1 which is an extract of the register of Births and Deaths maintained by the local authority shows that the date of birth of the first petitioner is 02.09.1995 in which case the incident which took place on 02.08.2013 is at a time when the first petitioner had not completed 18 years of age.

4. Under these circumstances, it is only proper to direct that the first petitioner may be produced or appear before the Board and seek an enquiry regarding his age at the time of the commission of offence.

5. As far as the second petitioner is concerned, this Court is given to understand that the sixth accused has already been granted anticipatory bail and the others have been granted regular bail.

6. After having gone through the records, it is found B.A. No. 7572/2013 -3- that the role attributed to the petitioner is negligible. It cannot be said that he has no liability for the acts committed for the simple reason that he is alleged to be among the group of persons who mounted the attack on the defacto complainant.

7. Considering the totality of the circumstances, it is felt that this is a fit case where extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court needs to be exercised in favour of the second petitioner. The petition is disposed of as against the first petitioner as already mentioned and as far as the second petitioner is concerned, the petition is allowed as follows:

1. The petitioner shall surrender before the Investigating Officer on or before 27.11.2013, who, after interrogation, shall produce him before the JFCM court concerned, which court, on an application for bail being moved by the petitioner shall release him on bail on his executing a bond for a sum of `15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand B.A. No. 7572/2013 -4- only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the said court. 2) The court shall ensure the identity of the sureties and the veracity of the tax receipts, before granting bail. 3) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer on every Wednesday between 9.00 am and 10.00 am until further orders. 4) The petitioner shall not tamper or attempt to tamper with the evidence and influence or try to influence the witnesses. 5) If any of the conditions is violated, the bail granted shall stand cancelled and the court concerned, of being satisfied of the said fact, may take such proceedings as are available in law. P.BHAVADASAN JUDGE ds