Augustine Joseph vs State Of Kerala on 13 January, 2020

[Cites 8, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Augustine Joseph vs State Of Kerala on 13 January, 2020

Bench: P.B.Suresh Kumar

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

           THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

     MONDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 23RD POUSHA, 1941

                      Bail Appl..No.9175 OF 2019

 AGAINST THE ORDER IN CRMC 1740/2019 DATED 05-12-2019 OF DISTRICT
                 COURT & SESSIONS COURT,KOZHIKODE

   CRIME NO.421/2019 OF Thiruvambadi Police Station , Kozhikode


PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

             AUGUSTINE JOSEPH
             AGED 55 YEARS
             S/O. JOSEPH, RESIDING AT PULIKKAL HOUSE,
             KAKKADAMPOYIL , KOZHIKODE DISTRICT- 673 604.

             BY ADVS.
             SRI.J.R.PREM NAVAZ
             SRI.SUMEEN S.
             SRI.M.BASIL.K.THANGAL

RESPONDENT/STATE:

             STATE OF KERALA
             REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
             HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 682 031.



             SRI.AMJAD ALI - SR.PP

     THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION           ON
13.01.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
 Bail Appl..No.9175 OF 2019

                                  2


                Bail Application No.9175 of 2019

            ----------------------------------------------

                           ORDER

This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. The petitioner is the eleventh accused in Crime No.421 of 2019 of Thiruvambadi Police Station, Kozhikode District, registered under Sections 143, 147, 341, 294(b), 354 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegation is that on 06.10.2019, at about 13.00 hours, about 40 environmental activists went to inspect a quarry where activities were allegedly being carried on unauthorizedly; that they were obstructed by a group of people, and that in the course of the resultant altercation, one among the obstructors had twisted the hand of one among the environmental activists who went to inspect the quarry.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Public Prosecutor.

4. It is seen that all the offences alleged, except the offence punishable under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Bail Appl..No.9175 OF 2019 3 Code are bailable. Having perused the First Information Report, I am of the view that it is a case where anticipatory bail has to be granted to the petitioner. In the circumstances, in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2011 SC 312, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner on the following conditions:

i) The petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation before the Investigating Officer within seven days from today. He shall also make himself available for interrogation before the Investigating Officer as and when directed by the Investigating Officer in writing to do so;

ii) If the petitioner is arrested prior to, or after his appearance before the Investigating Officer in terms of this order, he shall be released from custody on execution of a bond for Rs.25,000/- with two sureties each for the like sum.

(iii) The petitioner shall not influence or intimidate the prosecution witnesses nor shall he attempt to tamper with the evidence of the prosecution.

Bail Appl..No.9175 OF 2019 4

iv) The petitioner shall not involve in any other offence while on bail.

Sd/-

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Kerala High Court