High CourtsSingle Bench

Jibu Cleetus vs State Of Kerala

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 14 March 2018 · Citation: (2018) 03 KL CK 0151

HON’BLE JUDGES
Raja Vijayaraghavan V, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 438 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 143, 147, 148, 149, 294(b), 308, 323, 324, 427
CASE NUMBER
Bail Application No. 1482 Of 2018
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

11 paragraphs · 556 words
1.

This petition is filed under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2.

The petitioners herein are the accused Nos. 2 to 4 in Crime No.169 of 2018 of the Thekkumbhagom Police Station, registered under Sections 143, 147, 148, 447, 294(b), 324, 323, 427 & 308 read with Section 149 of the IPC.

3.

The petitioners herein as well as the 1st accused are residing adjacent to the Pallikkodi St.Joseph Church. On the date of incident, i.e, on 13.2.2018 at 11 pm, the petitioners along with the rest of the accused conspired to demolish the compound wall of the Church. For that purpose, they trespassed into the Church compound and managed to demolish a portion of the wall. The de facto complainant, who is the 'Kaikaran' of the Church, intervened. It is alleged that the 1st accused in the aforesaid Crime attacked him with a pick axe consequent to which, he sustained injuries on his head. The 2nd accused, who is the 1st petitioner herein, is alleged to have assaulted him with a walking stick. The 2nd petitioner, who was armed with an iron rod, assaulted the de facto complainant on his left knee. When he had fallen down, the rest of the accused are alleged to have stamped on his body causing injuries.

4.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the allegations are untrue. According to the learned counsel the 1st petitioner was injured and he could not have assaulted the victim.

5.

The learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer. It is submitted that the petitioners 1 and 2 were armed with weapons and they had a part to play in the assault. According to the learned counsel, the injured had sustained extensive injuries on his body and had suffered injuries to his forehead, knee and face.

6.

I have considered the submissions. Insofar as the petitioners 1 and 2 are concerned, specific allegations have been levelled by the victim. However, that is not the case insofar as the 3rd petitioner is concerned. I am of the considered view that relief can be granted to the 3rd petitioner.

7.In the result, this petition will stand partly allowed. The petition filed by the 1st and 2nd petitioner will stand dismissed. The petition filed by the 3rd petitioner will stand allowed. The 3rd petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer within ten days from today and shall undergo interrogation. Thereafter, if he is proposed to be arrested, he shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum. The above order shall be subject to the following conditions:

i)The 3rd petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation and shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when directed.

ii)The 3rd petitioner 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/her from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer.

iii)The 3rd petitioner shall not commit any similar offence while on bail.

In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the jurisdictional Court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation, if any, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law.