High Court Kerala High Court

Jijo Joseph vs State Of Kerala on 2 March, 2010

Kerala High Court
Jijo Joseph vs State Of Kerala on 2 March, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl..No. 863 of 2010()


1. JIJO JOSEPH, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O ALICE,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



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

                For Petitioner  :SRI.R.GIREESH VARMA

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

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

 Dated :02/03/2010

 O R D E R
                        K.T. SANKARAN, J.
                      ---------------------------
                      B.A. No. 863 of 2010
                  ------------------------------------
               Dated this the 2nd day of March, 2010


                             O R D E R

This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438

of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is the accused

in Crime No.14/2010 of Peringome Police Station, Kannur District.

2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under

Sections 447 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The prosecution case is that on 09.01.2010 at 9.P.M.,

the petitioner attacked the de facto complainant with a wooden

reaper. The de facto complainant sustained “fracture of middle

third of ulna”. The de facto complainant was admitted in the

Pariyaram Medical College hospital. The First Information

Statement shows that there was a quarrel between the de facto

complainant and the petitioner, when the de facto complainant

asked the petitioner to reduce the volume of T.V during midnight.

There was exchange of words between the parties. It is alleged

that the petitioner attacked the de facto complainant resulting in

the fracture as aforesaid.

B.A. No. 863 of 2010 2

4. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the

case, the nature of the injury and the allegations levelled against

the petitioner, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the

petitioner. If anticipatory bail is granted tot he petitioner, it

would adversely affect the proper investigation of the case,

For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the de

facto complainant has political influence and that if the petitioner

is arrested, there is every chance of the petitioner being

manhandled by the police. It is also submitted that the petitioner

and the de facto complainant are neighbours and the petitioner

intends to explore the possibilities of a settlement. In the facts

and circumstances of the case, to facilitate the settlement

between the parties, there will be a direction to the Sub Inspector

of Police, Peringome Police Station not to arrest the petitioner in

connection with Crime No. 14/2010 for a period of three weeks

from today.

Hand over copy to both sides.

K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE

B.A. No. 863 of 2010 3

ln