Loading...

Jayaprakash @ Jayan vs State Of Kerala on 8 July, 2009

Kerala High Court
Jayaprakash @ Jayan vs State Of Kerala on 8 July, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl..No. 3608 of 2009()


1. JAYAPRAKASH @ JAYAN, AGED 32 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. TOM K.JOSEPH @ TOM, AGED 23 YEARS,
3. SANOJ @ SANOPPY, AGED 26 YEARS,
4. PRAVEEN, AGED 26 YEARS, S/O.BABU,

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN

 Dated :08/07/2009

 O R D E R
                             K.T.SANKARAN, J.
                ------------------------------------------------------
                         B.A. NO. 3608 OF 2009
                ------------------------------------------------------
                      Dated this the 8th July, 2009


                                  O R D E R

This is an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure. The petitioners are accused Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5 in

Crime No.220 of 2009 of Mundakayam Police Station.

2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections

143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 326, 452, 365 and 308 read with Section 149 of

the Indian Penal Code.

3. One Anuja Roseline, who is an Australian citizen and whose

mother is also an Australian citizen, came to India and started residence

at Pampady in Kottayam District. Anuja Roseline’s mother belongs to

Pampady and she subsequently acquired citizenship of Australia. Anuja

Roseline fell in love with her car driver Baiju, aged 36, and started residing

with him. They entered into an agreement, which was registered before

the Sub Registrar’s Office. In the agreement itself it is stated that the

marriage as per that agreement is invalid and that both of them know that

it is invalid.

B.A. NO. 3608 OF 2009

:: 2 ::

4. It would appear that Anuja Roseline’s mother approached the

police stating that her daughter was missing. Anuja Roseline was

produced by the police before the Magistrate’s Court. She stated before

the learned Magistrate that she would like to go with Baiju. Learned

Magistrate permitted Anuja Roseline to go with Baiju.

5. The prosecution case is that thereafter, the mother of Anuja

Roseline, the 10th accused in this case, hired accused Nos.1 to 9, who are

professional goondas, to get Anuja Roseline from the custody of Baiju.

Accordingly the operation was done on 21.5.2009 and Anuja Roseline

was abducted by them. Later, Anuja Roseline was taken to Australia by

her mother.

6. Accused Nos.4 and 5 were arrested on 30.5.2009. Accused

Nos.1 and 2 surrendered before the police on 2.6.2009. They are in

judicial custody.

7. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the Bail

Application. It is submitted that all the accused persons are not arrested.

The tenth accused is in Australia and she has to be brought to India.

Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that if the petitioners are released

on bail at this stage, it would seriously affect the smooth conduct of the

B.A. NO. 3608 OF 2009

:: 3 ::

investigation. Some other accused persons are also to be arrested.

Witnesses are to be questioned. The investigation is at the initial stage.

8. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the

duration of the judicial custody undergone by the petitioners, the nature

and gravity of the offence and the present stage of investigation, I do not

think that the petitioners can be released on bail at this stage.

The Bail Application is accordingly dismissed.

(K.T.SANKARAN)
Judge

ahz/

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information