Baby.A.M Vs. State of Kerala - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1126574
CourtKerala High Court
Decided OnFeb-11-2014
JudgeHONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH
AppellantBaby.A.M
RespondentState of Kerala
Excerpt:
in the high court of kerala at ernakulam present: the honourable mr.justice thomas p.joseph tuesday, the11h day of february201422nd magha, 1935 bail appl..no. 939 of2014() ----------------------------------------------- crime no. 623/2014 of ayarkunnam police station , kottayam petitioners/accused(s): ---------------------------------------- 1. baby.a.m s/o.mathew, akkakunnel house, ettumanoor p.o ettumanoor village, kottayam.2. bibin bby s/o.baby,akkakunnel house, ettumanoor p.o ettumanoor village, kottayam.3. libin baby s/o.baby,akkakunnel house, ettumanoor p.o ettumanoor village, kottayam. by adv. sri.p.c.haridas respondents/complainant(s): -------------------------------------------------- 1. state of kerala represented by the s.i of police ayarkunnam police station, kottayam.2. public prosecutor high court of kerala, ernakulam. by public prosecutor smt. leliza this bail application having come up for admission on1102.2014, the court on the same day passed the following: thomas p.joseph, j.==================================== b.a. no. 939 of 2014 ==================================== dated this the 11th day of february, 2014 order petitioners apprehend arrest in crime no.623 of 2013 of the ayarkunnam police station for the offences punishable under sections 452, 323, 324 and 294(b) read with sec.34 of the indian penal code and have filed this application.2. learned public prosecutor has opposed the application. it is submitted that the 1st petitioner is not arrayed as an accused in the case and that petitioners 2 and 3 are accused 1 and 2. they, on 24.11.2013 at about 2.30 p.m. trespassed into the house of the de facto complainant, attacked him with a sword and inflicted injuries. the weapon is not so far recovered.3. learned counsel submits that the allegations are not true. it is submitted that on 24.11.2013 at 12.30 p.m. the de facto complainant attacked the 3rd petitioner and he underwent treatment at the primary health centre as revealed by annexure a3.4. annexure a3 is the o.p. card. at this stage i am unable to say that the 3rd petitioner was not present at the place b.a. no. 939 of 2014 -:2. :- of incident at the relevant time. having regard to the allegations made against petitioners 2 and 3 and that the weapon of offence is not recovered, request for anticipatory bail cannot be allowed. the application is disposed of as under. (i) since the 1st petitioner is reported to be not involved in the case, he need not have any apprehension of arrest. (ii) petitioners 2 and 3 shall surrender before the officer investigating crime no.623 of 2013 of the ayarkunnam police station on 17.02.2014 at about 10.00 a.m for interrogation. (iii) in case interrogation is not completed that day, it is open to the officer concerned to direct presence of petitioners 2 and 3 or any of them on the succeeding day/days and time as may be specified by him which the petitioners 2 and 3 or any of them shall comply. (iv) in case of arrest of petitioners 2 and 3 or any of them they/he shall be produced before the jurisdictional magistrate the same day. (v) it is open to petitioners 2 and 3 or any of them on such production to move application for bail before the learned magistrate with intimation given to the assistant public b.a. no. 939 of 2014 -:3. :- prosecutor concerned, at least three working days in advance. (vi) in case the investigating officer wants custody of the petitioner 2 and 3 or any of them for interrogation, it is open to him to move application before the learned magistrate. (vii) if any such application(s) is preferred, learned magistrate shall dispose of the application(s) as early as possible having regard to the relevant circumstances including necessity for custody of petitioners 2 and 3 or any of them to effect recovery. thomas p.joseph, judge. vsv
Judgment:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE11H DAY OF FEBRUARY201422ND MAGHA, 1935 BAIL APPL..NO. 939 OF2014() ----------------------------------------------- CRIME NO. 623/2014 OF AYARKUNNAM POLICE STATION , KOTTAYAM PETITIONERS/ACCUSED(S): ---------------------------------------- 1. BABY.A.M S/O.MATHEW, AKKAKUNNEL HOUSE, ETTUMANOOR P.O ETTUMANOOR VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM.

2. BIBIN BBY S/O.BABY,AKKAKUNNEL HOUSE, ETTUMANOOR P.O ETTUMANOOR VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM.

3. LIBIN BABY S/O.BABY,AKKAKUNNEL HOUSE, ETTUMANOOR P.O ETTUMANOOR VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.C.HARIDAS RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT(S): -------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE S.I OF POLICE AYARKUNNAM POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM.

2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. LELIZA THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON1102.2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J.

==================================== B.A. No. 939 of 2014 ==================================== Dated this the 11th day of February, 2014 ORDER

Petitioners apprehend arrest in Crime No.623 of 2013 of the Ayarkunnam Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 452, 323, 324 and 294(b) read with Sec.34 of the Indian Penal Code and have filed this application.

2. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the application. It is submitted that the 1st petitioner is not arrayed as an accused in the case and that petitioners 2 and 3 are accused 1 and 2. They, on 24.11.2013 at about 2.30 p.m. trespassed into the house of the de facto complainant, attacked him with a sword and inflicted injuries. The weapon is not so far recovered.

3. Learned counsel submits that the allegations are not true. It is submitted that on 24.11.2013 at 12.30 p.m. the de facto complainant attacked the 3rd petitioner and he underwent treatment at the Primary Health Centre as revealed by Annexure A3.

4. Annexure A3 is the O.P. Card. At this stage I am unable to say that the 3rd petitioner was not present at the place B.A. No. 939 of 2014 -:

2. :- of incident at the relevant time. Having regard to the allegations made against petitioners 2 and 3 and that the weapon of offence is not recovered, request for anticipatory bail cannot be allowed. The application is disposed of as under. (i) Since the 1st petitioner is reported to be not involved in the case, he need not have any apprehension of arrest. (ii) Petitioners 2 and 3 shall surrender before the Officer investigating Crime No.623 of 2013 of the Ayarkunnam Police Station on 17.02.2014 at about 10.00 a.m for interrogation. (iii) In case interrogation is not completed that day, it is open to the officer concerned to direct presence of petitioners 2 and 3 or any of them on the succeeding day/days and time as may be specified by him which the petitioners 2 and 3 or any of them shall comply. (iv) In case of arrest of petitioners 2 and 3 or any of them they/he shall be produced before the jurisdictional magistrate the same day. (v) It is open to petitioners 2 and 3 or any of them on such production to move application for bail before the learned magistrate with intimation given to the Assistant Public B.A. No. 939 of 2014 -:

3. :- Prosecutor concerned, at least three working days in advance. (vi) In case the Investigating Officer wants custody of the petitioner 2 and 3 or any of them for interrogation, it is open to him to move application before the learned magistrate. (vii) If any such application(s) is preferred, learned magistrate shall dispose of the application(s) as early as possible having regard to the relevant circumstances including necessity for custody of petitioners 2 and 3 or any of them to effect recovery. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv